ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL V. SUBRAMANYAM REDDIVARI, DHARMAVARAM

MA 19/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application by the Revenue seeking to rectify an alleged mistake in the Tribunal's earlier order which dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits. The Revenue contended that subsequent amendments to the assessment order increased the tax effect to Rs. 81,08,520, thus exceeding the limits set by the CBDT. The Assessee countered that the original appeal was rightly dismissed as the tax effect was below the threshold. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and the relevant CBDT circular, dismissed the M.A., upholding the original decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126772 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRINATH SADANALA
• Assessee Lawyers: KC DEVDAS
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.19/Hyd./2025 Arising out of ITA.No.77/Hyd/2024 - Assessment Year 2017-2018 The ACIT, Circle-1, KURNOOL. vs. Shri Subrahmanyam Reddivari, DHARMAVARAM PAN AHAPR4235K (Applicant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR For Assessee : CA K C Devdas Date of Hearing : 25.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G, A.M. : The above Miscellaneous application has been moved by the Revenue requesting to rectify the mistakes crept in the order of the Tribunal dated 10.10.2024 in ITA.No.77/Hyd./2024 by exercising it’s jurisdiction u/sec.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 MA.No.19/Hyd./2025 2. Shri Srinath Sadanala, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, has narrated the facts of the case and mistakes stated by the Revenue on record from the order of the Tribunal dated 10.10.2024 in ITA.No.77/Hyd./2024 and the relevant contents of the M.A. filed by the Revenue are reproduced as under : 1. “The Hon'ble ITAT 'A' Bench, Hyderabad has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as the tax effect is below the prescribed limits consequent to enhancement of monetary limits to Rs.60 lakhs for filing further appeal before ITAT in CBDT Instruction no.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 and also mentioned that if the appeal falls in any of the exceptions referred to in the above said CBDT Circular, the Revenue is at liberty to move an application for recalling the order, if so, advised. 2. On verification of the facts of the case, the tax effect is Rs.81,08,520/- as the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 18.12.2019 is subsequently amended u/s 154 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 on account of incorrect slab rates applied while calculating tax liability in the assessment order. Therefore, the tax effect is above the prescribed limits in accordance with the CBDT Instruction no.09/2024. 3. Therefore, it is requested that the Hon'ble ITAT may kindly recall the order under reference and the grounds of appeal filed with the original appeal may be adjudicated on merits of the case”. 3 MA.No.19/Hyd./2025 3. CA K C Devdas, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, there is no error crept in the order of the Tribunal dated 10.10.2024 in ITA.No.77/Hyd./2024 since the appeal instituted by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A) is below the monetary limit of 60 lakhs prescribed by the CBDT vide it’s Circular no.F.279/Misc./ MO74/2024-ITJ, dated 17.09.2024 for filing of an appeal before the Tribunal and, therefore, the M.A. filed by the Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 4. We have heard both the parties, considered the relevant contents of the M.A. filed by the Revenue u/sec.254(2) of the Act. We find that the Revenue seeks to recall the order of the Tribunal dated 10.10.2024 in ITA.No.77/Hyd./2024 by referring the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.154 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 and consequent demand notice where the Assessing Officer has determined the tax payable by the assessee at Rs.81,08,520/- where the Assessing Officer has assessed the income as per the normal provisions of the Act. After considering the relevant facts, we find that, there is no merit 4 MA.No.19/Hyd./2025 in the M.A. filed by the Revenue to recall the order of the Tribunal dated 10.10.2024 passed in ITA.No.77/Hyd./2024 because, as per the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A), the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than the monetary limit of 60 lakhs fixed by the CBDT vide it’s Circular no.F.279/Misc./MO74/2024- ITJ, dated 17.09.2024 for filing of an appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, in our considered view, there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal dated 10.10.2024 in ITA.No.77/Hyd./2024 as canvassed by the learned Sr. AR and thus, in our considered view, the M.A. filed by the Revenue u/sec.254(2) of the Act is not maintainable and, therefore, the same is dismissed. 5. In the result, M.A. filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [RAVISH SOOD] [MANJUNATHA G] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 25th April, 2025 VBP 5 MA.No.19/Hyd./2025 Copy to 1. The ACIT, Circle-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Childrens Park, NR Pet, KURNOOL. 2. Shri Subrahmanyam Reddivari, 15/23, Mamilapalli Road, DHARMAVARAM-515 671. Anantapur District. 3. The Pr. CIT, Kurnool 4. The DR ITAT “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy// "