ITAT Indore Judgments — September 2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, attributing it to the negligence of the assessee's earlier counsel. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte due to non-prosecution. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 80IB(10) regarding the restriction on commercial area was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, it could not be applied to projects approved and commenced before April 1, 2005. The Tribunal also noted that the condition for completion of the project was linked to the date of approval and commencement, not the assessment year in which profits were offered.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the delay was due to the negligence of the assessee's previous counsel, who failed to track the proceedings and respond appropriately, including missing crucial deadlines and ex-parte orders. The Tribunal further noted that the assessee had clearly opted out of email service in Form No. 35.

अदालत ने पाया कि विवादित मुद्दों में कर का प्रभाव क्रमशः ₹50,50,930/- और ₹50,50,610/- था, जो ₹60 लाख की संशोधित मौद्रिक सीमा से कम था। इसलिए, परिपत्र के अनुसार, राजस्व को इन अपीलों पर जोर नहीं देना चाहिए था।

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular, revising the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 60 lakhs, is applicable to pending appeals as well. Since the disputed amounts in these appeals were below the stipulated limit, the Revenue was not expected to pursue them. The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals on preliminary grounds without going into the merits.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT's circular No. 9/2024 mandates that appeals with a tax effect of less than Rs. 60 lakhs should not be filed before the Tribunal. The current appeal's tax effect is Rs. 52,05,065/-, which is below the stipulated limit. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular revised the monetary threshold for filing appeals to Rs. 60 lakhs. As the tax effect in the present case was Rs. 59,18,179/-, which is below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not maintainable. The revenue was not expected to pursue appeals below this limit.

अपील की सुनवाई के दौरान, यह पाया गया कि केंद्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड (सीबीडीटी) द्वारा जारी नवीनतम परिपत्र संख्या 9/2024 के अनुसार, अधिकरण के समक्ष अपील दाखिल करने के लिए वित्तीय सीमा को 60 लाख रुपये तक संशोधित किया गया है। वर्तमान अपील में कर का प्रभाव 54,42,519 रुपये है, जो सीबीडीटी द्वारा निर्धारित सीमा से कम है।

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024, revising the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 60 lakhs, is applicable retrospectively. Since the appeal's tax effect is below this limit, the Revenue is not expected to pursue it.

The tribunal noted that the CBDT circular dated 15.03.2024 excluded audit objections from the exception clause. The tribunal also referred to CBDT circulars that specified monetary limits for filing appeals, and that the present appeal did not meet the criteria for filing.

अधिकरण ने पाया कि सीबीडीटी के परिपत्र के अनुसार, 60 लाख रुपये से अधिक कर प्रभाव वाले मामलों में ही अपील दाखिल की जानी चाहिए। इस मामले में कर का प्रभाव 51,76,137 रुपये है, जो निर्धारित सीमा से कम है।

The Tribunal noted that the first notice was issued during the COVID-19 period, and the second notice was issued after a significant gap. The assessee's explanation regarding the migration of the appeal and lack of awareness of e-mailed notices was considered. The Departmental Representative raised no objection to remanding the matter.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and without proper verification of notices issued. The AO's assessment was based on best judgment, treating the entire sale consideration as taxable without allowing deductions for the cost of acquisition and under Section 54 of the Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity for hearing or considering the cost of acquisition and claim of deduction under Section 54.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's medical condition. It was held that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without proper notice, and the AO made additions without considering the cost of acquisition or Section 54F deductions. Therefore, the matter was considered to require reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) wrongly invoked revisionary powers under section 263 because the issue of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) was not the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO. However, the Tribunal also noted that the second assessment order, which did not make an addition for the Rs. 17,00,000 deposit, was erroneous, agreeing with the CIT(E)'s direction to verify cash deposits.

अधिकरण ने पाया कि वर्तमान मामले में विवादित मुद्दों में कर का प्रभाव 51,37,882 रुपये है, जो सीबीडीटी द्वारा निर्धारित 60 लाख रुपये की सीमा से कम है। परिपत्र के अनुसार, राजस्व को इस अपील पर आगे बढ़ना अपेक्षित नहीं है।

अदालत ने पाया कि सीबीडीटी के परिपत्र संख्या 9/2024 के अनुसार, 60 लाख रुपये से कम कर प्रभाव वाली अपीलों को विभाग द्वारा दाखिल नहीं किया जाना चाहिए। आक्षेपित प्रकरण में कर प्रभाव 1,56,000/- रुपये है, जो निर्धारित सीमा से कम है।