DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. TANGIRALA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Years: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Tangirala Infrastructure Development Central Circle-2(3), Private Limited, Chennai. No.7-21 Sakthi Garden, D B Jain College Hostel R, Thoraipakkam, Chennai-600 096 [PAN: AACCT9261B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Ms.B.Revathi, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr.Vinod D.Mudaliar, JCIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 28.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1066601550(1) dated 11.07.2024 for the assessment years 2012-13. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 11.07.2024 passed by CIT(A), Chennai.

2.0 At the outset, the Ld. AR for the assesse Advocate Smt B.Revathi, objecting to revenue preferring this appeal submitted that the latest Circular No.09/2042 dated 17.09.2024 issued by CBDT, whereby the threshold limits for filing of appeals by the Revenue before Hon’ble Apex Court, High Court and the ITATs have been modified. Thus, appeals before the ITAT are only maintainable in case where tax effect involved exceeds Rs.60 lakhs. Attention was invited to para-5 of the impugned circular, stipulating that this threshold limit is also applicable in respect of all pending appeals before the said appellate authorities. Perusal of Form 36 appended shows that the appeal of the revenue is non-maintainable as the tax effect involved therein is Rs.59,30,515/- and which is less than Rs.60 lakhs. The Ld. DR fairly conceded that prima facie contentions of Ld. AR appear to be correct. We therefore find sufficient force in the objections raised by the Ld.AR and hold that these appeals filed by the revenue are not maintainable and need to be dismissed in limine. Having said so, if the revenue finds that the appeal is maintainable but falls in the exemption clause prescribed in the circular mentioned supra then it is at liberty to file MA for recalling order upon which tribunal will take a call in accordance with law.