Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 28789 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
8 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
21-10-2024
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
21-10-2024
Assessment Year
2017-2018
Appeal Filed On
07-02-2024
Judgement Text
" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ , चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 391 /CHD/2019 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / A.Ys. 2012-13 The DCIT, Circle 1 (1), Chandigarh बनाम VS M/s Orbit Resorts Pvt. Ltd., H. No. 256, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh èथायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AAACO4024H अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1013 /CHD/2019 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / A.Ys. 2014-15 The DCIT, Circle 1 (1), Chandigarh बनाम VS M/s Orbit Resorts Pvt. Ltd., H. No. 256, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh èथायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AAACO4024H अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent HYBRID HEARING Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 21.10.2024 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 391 & 1013/CHD/2019- M/s Orbit Resorts Pvt. Ltd, Chandigarh 2 आदेश/ORDER Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: Both these appeals are filed by the Revenue against the separate orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh dated 11.01.2019 and 03.04.2019 respectively ITA No. 391/CHD/2019 2. It is noted that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is Rs.21,33,305/-. Accordingly, in terms of the CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, wherein the Department has specified the monetary limit for an appeal to be filed by the Revenue before the ITAT as Rs. 60 lacs, the appeal so filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. 3. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the present appeal filed by the Department is dismissed due to low tax effect with a liberty to seek recall in case the matter falls under any of the exceptions so carved out in the aforesaid circular. 4. It is, however, clarified that the dismissal of the above appeal shall not be taken to be affirmation of the order of the 391 & 1013/CHD/2019- M/s Orbit Resorts Pvt. Ltd, Chandigarh 3 CIT(A) on merits. The legal issue raised by the Revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. 5. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No.1013/Chd/2019 6. Similarly, the tax effect involved in ITA No. 1013/CHD/2019 is Rs.49,43,025/-. Therefore, in terms of the CBDT Circular dated 17.09.2024 wherein the Department has specified the monetary limit for an appeal to be filed by the Revenue before the ITAT as Rs.60 lacs, the appeal so filed by the Revenue is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 21.10.2024. Sd/- Sd/- ( A. D. JAIN ) ( KRINWANT SAHAY) Vice President Accountant Member “आर.क े.” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 391 & 1013/CHD/2019- M/s Orbit Resorts Pvt. Ltd, Chandigarh 4 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "
AI summary
The Income Tax Department filed two separate appeals against M/s Orbit Resorts Pvt. Ltd. concerning different assessment years. The appeals were based on the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh. However, both appeals were dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, due to the tax effect being below the Rs. 60 lakhs threshold set by the CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The Tribunal emphasized that the dismissal of these appeals should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the lower appellate authority's decisions on the substantive issues.
