PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA V. M/S. PLACID LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 2542/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, which had quashed an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The original assessment was contested because it was made in the name of a company that had already been amalgamated. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was primarily based on the low tax effect, adhering to the CBDT's directive not to pursue appeals under such circumstances unless specific exceptions apply.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36269 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. (2022) 137 taxmann.com 91 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 250; 68; 14A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'डी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय शमाा, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राक ेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 2542/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Placid Limited (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCP5447J Appearances: Department represented by : Sailen Samadder, Add. CIT, Sr. DR. Assessee represented by : None (Adjournment letter Filed). Date of concluding the hearing : February 26th, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : March 19th, 2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2010-11 dated 28.03.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.03.2013. 2. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 193 days. An application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Тах, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata stating as under: Page | 2 I.T.A. No.: 2542/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Placid Limited. “Dates Events/Reasons 28.03.2024 Order of CIT(A) was received in the O/o Pr. CIT-2, Kol. 27.05.2024 Due date for filing of 2nd Appeal. 16.10.2024 ASR is submitted to the O/o PCIT-2, Kolkata through proper channel. 24.10.2024 Certificate of filing 2nd appeal was received from the O/o Pr. CIT-2, Kolkata. 06.12.2024 Necessary hardcopies of documents/paper/details required for filing 2nd Appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared. 10.12.2024 2nd Appeal was filed. It is respectfully submitted that the appeal could not be filed on or before due date due to an immense work load relating to assessment, penalties and writ petition filed by the various assessee in the Calcutta High Court against the order U/s 148A(d) and notice U/s148, as well as collecting and arranging the required documents/files for the 2nd appeal. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone the delay of 197 days in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata for the sake of substantial justice.” 2.1 We have considered the application filed and note that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merit. 3. The grounds of appeal raised are as under: 1. The CIT(A) has erred in quashing the assessment order dated 16.03.2013 ignoring the decision of the apex court in the case of PCIT vs. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. (2022) 137 taxmann.com 91 (SC). 2. The CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that M/s Digvijay Investments Ltd. existed on the date of initiation of the assessment proceedings; and, in the assessment order, the name of the amalgamated company i.e. M/s Placid Ltd. was also categorically mentioned. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add any new ground or alter any of the grounds and to put forward necessary arguments in support of Page | 3 I.T.A. No.: 2542/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Placid Limited. the grounds of appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, additions under section 68 and disallowance under section 14A of the Act were made by the Ld. AO. It is pertinent to note that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the first appellate authority is less than Rs. 60,00,000/- as mentioned in Col. No. 10 of Form No. 36. The Ld. AR objected to the admission of the appeal as the tax effect is stated to be Rs. 0/-, which is below Rs. 60,00,000/-. The Revenue has not raised any ground of appeal on the quantum additions which were inter alia deleted on account of quashing of the assessment order as the assessment was made in the name of the company which was not in existence and which had amalgamated. The total amount of additions made and the disputed amount is mentioned at Rs. 1,01,21,472/- in columns 7(b) and 7(c) of Form No. 36, the notional tax on which will be below Rs. 60,00,000/-. On 27/02/2025 the case was adjourned to 28/02/2025, requiring the Ld. Sr. DR to inform the Bench as to how the appeal was maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified but no such justification was filed on the next date of hearing. As per the CBDT’s Circular No. 9 of 2024 issued on 17th September, 2024, the CBDT has directed its subordinate authorities not to file any appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal if the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the ld. CIT(A) is less than Rs. 60,00,000/-. Such an order could only be challenged if it comes within the exceptions provided in the Instruction. Ld. Sr. DR could not rebut this fact nor could he demonstrate how the appeal was covered under any of the exceptions; therefore, this appeal is not maintainable. 3. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we dismiss this appeal of the Revenue on account of low tax effect. Page | 4 I.T.A. No.: 2542/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Placid Limited. However, in case on re-verification of the facts at the end of the Ld. Assessing Officer, it emerges that the tax effect is more than the limit for filing the appeal or this case falls under any of the exceptions provided in the instruction, then the Revenue will be at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall of this order and revival of the appeal. Such an application should be filed within the time limit provided in the Act. 4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 19.03.2025 Bidhan (P.S.) Page | 5 I.T.A. No.: 2542/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Placid Limited. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. M/s. Placid Limited, 7, Munshi Premchand Sarani, Kolkata, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700022. 2. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata "