INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BAHWAN DAKSHIN, KOLKATA vs. SURENDRA KUMAR NATHANY, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 742/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 November 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)3 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the tax effect of the disputed additions being below the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 for filing appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2017-18. The appeal concerned disallowances of expenditure and unexplained cash deposits made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limits as per CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 57,Section 250,Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

Hearing: 24.10.2024Pronounced: 04.11.2024

Present for: Appellant by : Miraj D. Shah, A.R. Respondent by : P.P. Barman, 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:

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [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 2017-18, dated 06.02.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 07.12.2019.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1 That the Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order has failed to appreciate the fact that assessee did not submit any explanation/document in reply to notices served upon him during scrutiny assessment and as such the Assessing Officer was justified in making disallowances of expenditure claimed u/s 57 of the I.T. Act of Rs. 31,50,790/-. That the Ld. CIT(A) during appellate proceedings has accepted fresh documents/evidences from assessee and decided the case on the basis of such documents without giving opportunity to the Assessing Surendra Kumar Nathany. : AY: 2017-18 Officer to submit Remand Report and as such he has violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order has failed to appreciate the fact that assessee did not submit any explanation/document in reply to notices served upon him during scrutiny assessment and as such the Assessing Officer was justified in treating cash deposit of Rs. 31,95,100/- in bank during demonetisation period as unexplained. That the Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule 1962 is a part of statute and by not calling Remand Report from the Assessing Officer, the constitutional validity of the provisions of Rule IT Rule, 1962 has been challenged, which comes within the ambit of exceptional clause 10(a) of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11/07/2018.”

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.

4.

The ld. DR has also fairly stated that tax effect involved in appeal is less than the prescribed limit.

5.

In view of above stated position, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed u/s 268A of the Act because of tax effect lower than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra).

6.

In case, at a later stage, it is found that these appeals are indeed covered under ‘exceptions’ then the department would be at liberty to move the ITAT with an MA for appropriate considerations.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 4th November, 2024.

More judgments on Section 57

All 1,225 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →