Ita/13/2012 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central – I v. Avinash Agarwal

ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE O – 41 ITA/13/2012COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL – IVERSUSAVINASH AGARWAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble Justice SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI The Hon'ble Justice RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ Date : 15[th ]January 2024. Appearance: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate… for appellant. Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, AdvocateMs. Ananya Rath, AdvocateMr. Navin Mittal, Advocate… for respondent. 1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2.This appeal relates to assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The tax effect involved in the three appeals before the Tribunal areRs.47,71,530/- for assessment year 2005-06, Rs.7,71,250/- for assessmentyear 2006-07 and Rs.5,78,131/- for assessment year 2007-08. Thus, thetax involved in the aforesaid three assessment years involved in this appealare much below the tax limit provided for filing the appeal under CircularNo.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this case falls underthe exception given in the said circular inasmuch as the controversy of penny stock is involved. He admits that this appeal was filed in the year2011 and not after the circular dated 16.09.2018 carving out exceptions forfiling appeal in matters of penny stock even though the tax effect is belowthe limit provided in the circular for filing appeal by the Income TaxDepartment. 4. We find that similar issue arose before a co-ordinate Bench of thisCourt in ITAT/163/2021 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kolkatavs. Rakesh Kumar Khemuka) which was dismissed by order dated20.07.2012 observing as under : “In terms of the above direction the Principal Commissionerof Income Tax (Judicial), Kolkata has addressed the learnedStanding Counsel for the appellant by letter dated 3[rd] March,2022. Along with the said letter, notes on submission dated 7[th]March, 2022 has been appended. The said notes of submissionreads as follows : “Notes on Submissions 1.The issue before the Hon’ble High Court is seen to be theretrospective or prospective applicability of Central Board ofDirect Taxes Circular No. 23 dated 06.09.2019 and CentralBoard of Direct Taxes OM dated 16.09.2019 by which exceptionto the tax effect was allowed for filing appeals in Long TermCapital Gain/Penny Stock in ITAT in respect of appeals whichwere dismissed by ITAT.retrospective or prospective applicability of Central Board ofDirect Taxes Circular No. 23 dated 06.09.2019 and CentralBoard of Direct Taxes OM dated 16.09.2019 by which exceptionto the tax effect was allowed for filing appeals in Long TermCapital Gain/Penny Stock in ITAT in respect of appeals whichwere dismissed by ITAT. 2.I am therefore to submit that in view of the facts of theimpugned matter, the exception to penny stock cases from thestipulation of monetary limit would be indeed operable fromimpugned matter, the exception to penny stock cases from thestipulation of monetary limit would be indeed operable from 16.09.2019 that is only in the cases where appeal was filed onor after 16.09.2019.” In the light of the stand taken by the Department, the monetarylimit would be operable from 16[th] September, 2019, that is, onlyin cases where appeal was filed on or after 16[th] September,2019. In the light of the above clarification, we find that the orderpassed by the learned Tribunal does not call for anyinterference. Accordingly, we hold that there is no substantialquestion of law arising for consideration in these appeals andthey are dismissed. With the dismissal of the appeals, the connectedapplications also stand dismissed.” 5.Respectfully following the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in thecase of Rakesh Kumar Khemuka(supra) this appeal (ITA 13/2012) is alsodismissed. (SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.) (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)