INCOME TAX OFFICER, NCW - 3(3) , CHENNI vs. DAMODHARAN SIVAKUMAR, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1806/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 October 2024AY 2016-17Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member), Shri Amitabh Shukla (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 condoned the delay of 148 days. However, it was noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was considered not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT(A) NFAC for assessment year 2016-17. The appeal was filed with a delay of 148 days, for which the Revenue provided bonafide reasons. The assessee-respondent did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

CBDT Circular No. 06/2024, dated 17.09.2024

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi&

Hearing: 01.10.2024Pronounced: 09.10.2024

O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2016-17.

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 148 days. The Appellant-Revenue filed an affidavit stating reasons for the said delay. On perusal of the same, we find that the reasons stated by the Revenue are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 148 days is condoned.

3 We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee-respondent called absent and set exparte. We proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. DR basing on the material available on record.

4.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing, we note that the tax effect in the appeal filed by the Revenue is less than the monetary limit of ₹.60,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT to file an appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal as per the CBDT Circular No. 06/2024, dated 17.09.2024. The ld. DR fairly conceded and being so, the Revenue authorities are precluded from filing the appeal before the Tribunal, since the tax effect is less than ₹.60,00,000/- in this appeal. Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →