What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. As per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the appeals were dismissed because the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.

The Income Tax Officer filed several appeals before the ITAT. There was a delay in filing these appeals, which the tribunal condoned. The primary reason for dismissal was that the tax effect in these appeals did not exceed the monetary limit fixed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue should be dismissed due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

ITO vs Asish Kumar Barh, Purba Medinipur | ITAT Kolkata 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara]

Heard together (17 matters)

I.T.A. No. 1701/Kol/2017

I.T.A. No. 1703/Kol/2017

I.T.A. No. 1704/Kol/2017

I.T.A. No. 1705/Kol/2017

I.T.A. No. 1706/Kol/2017

I.T.A. No. 1707/Kol/2017

I.T.A. No. 1708/Kol/2017

I.T.A. No. 1709/Kol/2017

I.T.A. No. 1710/Kol/2017

I.T.A. No. 628/Kol/2016

I.T.A. No. 629/Kol/2016

I.T.A. No. 1696/Kol/2017

I.T.A. No. 1697/Kol/2017

I.T.A. No. 1698/Kol/2017

I.T.A. No. 1699/Kol/2017

I.T.A. No. 1711/Kol/2017

I.T.A. No. 1712/Kol/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia...............................................….…………..…......Appellant Pranab Kumar Barh............……………………………………....………………..……………………Respondent Garkamalpur, Mahisadal Dist- Purba Medinipur WB-721 602 [PAN : ADCPB 6079 K] Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1712/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia...............................................….…………..…......Appellant Barh Jewellers.......................……………………………………....………………..……………………Respondent Durgachak Commercial Complex Dist- Purba Medinipur WB – 721 602 [PAN : AAHFB 9722 H] Appearances by: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT Sr. D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : March 20th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : March , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- At the outset we find that there is a delay of 35 days in filing of these appeals. After perusing the petition for condonation, we are convinced that the department was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeals on time. Hence the delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted.

3 Assessment Year: 2002-03 I.T.A. No. 629/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/s. Beeyu Overseas Ltd 2. The undisputed fact in all these appeals is that the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs.20,00,000/-, fixed by the CBDT Circular No.3/2018, F. NO. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt), dt. 11th July, 2018. As mandated by this above referred Circular No. 3/2018, these appeals of the revenue are dismissed. 2. In the result, these appeals of the revenue are dismissed.

Kolkata, the 20th day of March, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- [S.S. Godara] [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated : 20.03.2019 {SC SPS} Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. New Barh Jewellers Apanika Market Complex Chaitanyapur Sutahata- 721 635

Pranab Kumar Barh Garkamalpur, Mahisadal Dist- Purba Medinipur WB-721 602

M/s. Dinanath Ornament Stores Garkamalpur, Mahisadal Dist- Purba Medinipur WB-721 602

Barh Jewellers Durgachak Commercial Complex Dist- Purba Medinipur WB – 721 602

Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia

ITO, WARD - 27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA vs. ASISH KUMAR BARH, PURBA MEDINIPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments