DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. KIRLOSKAR ELECTRONIC COMPANY LIMITED, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1127/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 October 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No.9/2024 prescribes a monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- for filing appeals. As the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below this limit and did not fall under any exception, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal and the assessee filed a cross-objection against the CIT(A)'s order. The Revenue's appeal was for Assessment Year 2011-12. The tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was determined to be Rs. 54,69,815/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed for not meeting the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri. Sachin Mehta, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Hearing: 14.10.2024Pronounced: 14.10.2024

Heard together (2 matters)

CO No.27/Bang/2024
ITA No. 1127/Bang/2024

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

Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Bangalore – 560 055. Circle - 4(3)(1), PAN : AABCK 2721 Q Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Sachin Mehta, CA Department by : Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 14.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2024 O R D E R

Per George George K, Vice President :

1.

This appeal at the instance of the Revenue and the Cross Objection (CO) preferred by the assessee are directed against CIT(A)’s Order dated 19.07.2023 passed under section 250 of the Act. The relevant Assessment Year is 2011-12.

2.

At the very outset, the learned AR submitted that appeal by the Revenue is below the monetary limit prescribed by the Board Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee had worked out a tax effect with regard to the appeal filed by the Department which is less than Rs.60,00,000/- prescribed by the Board Circular No.9/2024 (supra).

3.

The learned DR, on the other hand, has filed a report from the AO. The AO in report admits that tax effect in this case is below Rs.60,00,000/- and does not come under the exception clause prescribed in Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 whereby appeal can be preferred irrespective of the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, in this case, the tax effect in the appeal filed by the Department is Rs.54,69,815/-. The CBDT Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 had prescribed a monetary limit / tax effect exceeding Rs.60,00,000/- or above for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The said Circular No.9/2024 apply to the pending appeals before the Supreme Court / High Court / Tribunal (Refer para 5 of Circular). Since the case of the Revenue does not come under the exception clause mentioned in Circular No.5/2024, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. It is ordered accordingly.

CO No.27/Bang/2024

5.

The assessee’s CO is essentially supporting the Order of the CIT(A). Since we have dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, the CO is rendered infructuous and same is dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO preferred by the assessee are dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →