Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal against an Ld.CIT(A) order for AY 2017-18. The assessee filed a cross-objection, challenging the appeal's maintainability as the tax effect of Rs. 21,66,990/- was below the monetary limit stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, and argued no exceptions applied. The Revenue contended the case fell under an exception for registration matters.
Held
The Tribunal found that the tax effect was below the monetary limit. It ruled that the exception invoked by the Revenue (Clause-(f) of Para No.3.1 of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, concerning non-quantifiable tax effect for registration cases like Section 12AA) was inapplicable for AY 2017-18, as the assessee's Section 12AA registration was only effective from AY 2018-19. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable when the tax effect is below the CBDT prescribed monetary limit and if the case falls under any of the specified exceptions.
Sections Cited
250, 254(1), 10(23C), 12A, 12AA, 12AB, 263, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE
आदेश /O R D E R
PER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The present appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee have been filed against the impugned order dated 15.10.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”], for the A.Y. 2017-18.
The present matters were listed for hearing before us pursuant to the order dated 21.11.2025, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple v. ITO in M.A. No. 38/Viz/2025 (Arising out of C.O.No. 8/VIZ/2025 in A.Y. 2017-18), whereby the earlier order dated 20.05.2025, passed under section 254(1) of the Act, was recalled for fresh adjudication of Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee in its cross objection, as the same goes to the root of the matter being the maintainability of the appeal filed by the revenue. The relevant observations of the Co-ordinate Bench, in the aforesaid decision in this regard, are as follows: -
“6. Since the Tribunal has not adjudicated the issue raised by the assessee in the cross objection, therefore, there is an apparent mistake in the impugned order of the Tribunal which requires to be rectified. Further, the issue raised by the assessee goes to the root of the matter being the maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we recall the impugned order of the Tribunal for fresh adjudication of ground no.2 as raised in the cross objection of the assessee. The Registry is directed to list the cross objection of the assessee
Page No. 2 for fresh hearing on 16.12.2025. The date of hearing of the appeal is announced in the open Court and has been noted by both the parties, therefore, no separate notice be issued to the parties.”
Ground No.2 raised in assessee’s cross objection is reproduced as follows:-
“2. The appeal filed falls below the prescribed monetary limits set out in CBDT Cir.No.5/2024 dt.15.3.24 and hence not maintainable; and is also not maintainable as the appellant has not demonstrated as to how the present appeal with 'tax effect below the monetary limits as per CBDT Circular No.5/2024 is covered by the exceptions, as none of the exceptions mentioned in the Circular are relevant/applicable in the appeal filed by the Revenue; the tax effect in the appeal as per the CIT(A)'s order is Rs.21,66,994/- (7.2180025-7.13031) only . (*Exceptions mentioned in Circular No.5/2024 are shown below for ready reference)”
As per the assessee, the tax effect involved in the Revenue’s appeal is below the monetary limit prescribed in CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, and hence the Revenue’s appeal is not maintainable. From the perusal of the Form-36 filed in the Revenue’s appeal, we find that in Column No.10, the tax effect relating to the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is mentioned as Rs. 21,66,990/-. We find that it is further mentioned that the case is “covered under exceptions”. During the hearing, Ld.Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] submitted that the Revenue’s appeal falls under exceptions provided in Clause-(f) of Para No.3.1 of the CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, which reads as follows: -
“f. Where the tax effect is not quantifiable or not involved, such as the case of registration of trusts or institutions under sections 10(23C), 12A/12AA/12AB of the Act, order passed u/s 263 of the Act etc. The Page No. 3 reference to cases involving sections referred here, where it is not possible to quantify tax effect or tax effect is not involved, is for the purpose of illustration only.”
From the careful perusal of the exception provided in Clause-(f) of Para No.3.1 of the CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, we find that the same deal with cases where the tax effect is not quantifiable, such as the cases of registration of trusts or institutions under sections 10(23C), 12A, 12AA & 12AB of the Act, or passed under section 263 of the Act, etc. However, it is evident from the record that in the present case, the Assessing Officer completed the scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 144 of the Act vide order dated 06.12.2019 and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.76,38,426/-, after making the additions. We further find that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the assessee was assessed in the status of “Artificial Juridical Person” and it is an admitted fact that the assessee was granted Registration under section 12AA of the Act only w.e.f. A.Y. 2018-19. Thus, in the year under consideration, there was no dispute regarding the grant of registration under any of the sections as mentioned in the exceptions as provided in Clause-(f) of Para No.3.1 of the CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. During the hearing, apart from relying on the grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal, the Ld. DR could not bring any material to show that the Revenue’s appeal falls under any of the exceptions provided in the circular referred to above. As the tax effect relating to the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is Rs.21,66,990/-, which is below the prescribed monetary
Page No. 4 limit for preferring the appeal before the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the Revenue’s appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised in the assessee’s cross objection is allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid order.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th December, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (ओंकारेश्वर धिदारा) (संदीप धसंह करहेल) (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 19.12.2025 Giridhar, Sr.PS आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/ The Assessee : Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple Batchupet, Machilipatnam Krishna District – 521001, Andhra Pradesh 2. रधजस्व / The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward Shiva Towers, 5th Floor, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry – 533103 Andhra Pradesh 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, नवशधखधपटणम /DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax 6. गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file //True Copy// आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam
Page No. 5