DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 3(2), KOLKATA vs. BHAGWAN DAS AGARWAL, KOLKATA

Present for: Appellant by : Devesh Poddar, Advocate Respondent by : Loviesh Shelly, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the Revenue are against the three separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-21 [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 2014-15, dated 29.02.2024, AY 2015-16 dated 07.03.2024, AY 2016-17 dated 13.03.2024 which have been passed against the assessment order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2017.

“1 Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the aassessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 84,95,100/- made by the AO despite the fact that the AO had established in his assessment order that cash deposits were made by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 50.40 crores and were routed to other entities via banking channels controlled by the assessee.? 2. The department craves the right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 2.1. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1679/Kol/2024:

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal “1 of the aassessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 84,95,100/- made by the AO despite the fact that the AO had established in his assessment order that cash deposits were made by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 50.40 crores and were routed to other entities via banking channels controlled by the assessee.? 2. The department craves the right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 2.2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1680/Kol/2024:

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal “1 of the aassessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 84,95,100/- made by the AO despite the fact that the AO had established in his assessment order that cash deposits were made by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 50.40 crores and were routed to other entities via banking channels controlled by the assessee.? 2. The department craves the right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

3. 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.

3.1. This circular prescribes that the revised monetary limits shall apply retrospectively to pending appeals as well.