Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA
Income Tax Officer, Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 .....................…...…………….... Appellant vs. Mahadev Dealers Pvt. Ltd., 20, Pheras Lane Bowbazar, Kolkata - 700012 [PAN: AAECM4750E] ...............…..….................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 02.01.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 08.01.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2011-12, dated 23.01.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2018.
1.1. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1 That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in passing the order by deleting the amount Rs. 90,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 without verifying it properly.
Mahadev Dealers Pvt. Ltd. : AY: 2011-12 2. That the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) Delhi is contrary to the judgement of the Hon’ble Division Bench, High Court at Calcutta in ITAT/67/2024 (IA No. GA/2/2024) in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central-2), Kolkata Vs. BST Infratech Limited.
3. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete, amend or modify any grounds before or at the time of appellate proceedings.”
It is seen, at the outset, that the tax effect on the disputed additions before us is less than Rs. 60 lakhs as prescribed in the CBDT’s latest Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 for filing appeals by the Revenue before this Tribunal.
2.1. This circular prescribes that the revised monetary limits shall apply retrospectively to pending appeals as well.
The ld. DR has also stated that tax effect involved in appeal is less than the prescribed limit, but has requested this Bench that this appeal may be disposed of on merits.
In view of above stated position, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed u/s 268A of the Act because of tax effect lower than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra). The Ld. DR’s contention cannot be accepted as the basis for filing the appeal itself has been found as being non-valid.
In case, at a later stage, it is found that these appeals are indeed covered under ‘exceptions’ then the department would be at liberty to move the ITAT with an MA for appropriate considerations.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the court on 08.01.2025