ITO,WARD-1(1), CUTTACK vs. THE CUTTACK CREDIT CO-OP. SOCEITY LTD, CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 27/CTK/2021Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 March 2022AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 1,58,80,813/-. The appeal was filed with a delay of 111 days, which was condoned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect below the monetary limit specified by CBDT circulars and Supreme Court pronouncements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA

For Appellant: Shri N.R.Biswal
For Respondent: Shri Sovesh Chandra Mohnanty, Sr
Hearing: 9/3Pronounced: 9/3/20

O R D E R

Per C.M.Garg, JM , JM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) gainst the order of the CIT(A), Cuttack dated 18.09.2020 Cuttack dated 18.09.2020 for the assessment year 2015-16 16.

2.

The appeal is time barred by 111 The appeal is time barred by 111 days. The revenue has filed condonaton days. The revenue has filed condonaton petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, stating that petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, stating that petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, stating that the limitation to file appeal before the Tribunal has expired due to the fact that the the limitation to file appeal before the Tribunal has expired due to the fact that the the limitation to file appeal before the Tribunal has expired due to the fact that the nationwide lockdown for COVID lockdown for COVID-19 pandemic, the offices were closed and further 19 pandemic, the offices were closed and further worked with limited workforce and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the worked with limited workforce and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the worked with limited workforce and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the time limit for filing appeal vide its order in W.P. No.Civil (03)/2020 dated time limit for filing appeal vide its order in W.P. No.Civil (03)/2020 dated time limit for filing appeal vide its order in W.P. No.Civil (03)/2020 dated 23.3.2020. It was in this backdrop It was in this backdrop that the appeal was not filed within the that the appeal was not filed within the stipulated time period and, therefore, it is requested to condone the delay and stipulated time period and, therefore, it is requested to condone the delay and stipulated time period and, therefore, it is requested to condone the delay and P a g e 1 | 4 admit the appeal for adjudication. Ld A.R. had no serious objection in condoning the delay.

3.

After going through the condonation petition, and considering the submissions of both the parties, it appears that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to COVID-19 Lockdown and all the Government Offices were closed at the relevant time therefore the delay of 111 days in filing the appeal by the revenue is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

4.

The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A) in deleting addition of Rs.1,58,80,813/- from interest on fixed deposits made in the co-operative banks u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) of the I.T.Act.

5.

At the outset, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that in this case, the tax effect is below the monetary limit as per the Circular No.17/2019 issued by CBDT dated 8th August, 2019, i.e. Rs.50,00,000/-, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable and should be dismissed.

6.

We find that CBDT vide circular No.17/2019 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007- ITJ(Pt) dated 8th August, 2019, has further liberalized its policy for not filing appeals against the decisions of the appellate authorities in favour of the taxpayers, wherein tax involved is below certain threshold limits, and announced its policy decision not to file, or press, the appeals, before this Tribunal, against the appellate orders favourable to the assessee in the cases in which overall tax effect, excluding interest except when interest itself is in dispute, is Rs 50,00,000/- or less.

P a g e 2 | 4

7.

This circular, only enhances the monetary limits and gives further relaxation. The old circular, beyond any dispute or controversy, categorically applied to the pending appeals as on the date of issuance of circular.

8.

The circular dated 8th August 2019 is not a standalone circular. It is to be read in conjunction with the CBDT circular No. 3/2018 (subsequent amendment thereto), and all it does is to replace paragraph nos. 3 and 5 of the said circular.

9.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax-5,New Delhi Vs. Keshav Power Ltd., in SLP No.21497/2019 dated 16.08.2019 reported in 2019(8)TMI 811(SC) has also applied the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 and has dismissed the appeal holding as follows:

"Since the tax effect involved in the matter is less than Rs.2 crores, going by the latest circular issued by the CBDT, we see no reason to interfere in this matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed, leaving all the questions of law open". 10. Learned CIT D.R. submits that liberty may kindly be given to point out, upon necessary further verifications, and to seek recall the dismissal of appeal and restoration of the appeal in the case:

(i) in which it can be demonstrated that the appeals are covered by the exceptions, and (ii) which are inadvertently included in this bunch of appeals, wherein the tax effect, in terms of the CBDT circular (supra), exceeds Rs 50,00,000. 11. We accept the request of ld CIT D.R. We make it clear that the appellant shall be at liberty to point out the case which is wrongly included in the appeal so summarily dismissed, either owing to wrong computation of tax effect or owning

P a g e 3 | 4 to such cases being covered by the permissible exceptions or for any other reason, and we will take appropriate remedial steps in this regard.

12.

In the circumstances, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax-5, New Delhi Vs. Keshav Power Ltd. (supra) and in the light of the above discussions, the appeal filed by the Revenue is found to be non-maintainable and hence, dismissed.

13.

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 9/3/2022.

(Arun Khodpia) (Chandra Mohan Garg) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 9/03/2022 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : ITO, Ward 1(1), Cuttack 2. The Respondent: The Cuttack Credit Co-op. Society Ltd., Link Road, Arundoya Market, Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)- Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT- Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →