1 OD – 14 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/183/2026 IA NO: GA/1/2026, GA/2/2026 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL 1, KOLKATA VS RAHGU MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE : THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date : 28th July, 2026 Appearance : Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri, Adv. Mr. Anurag Roy, Adv. …for appellant. Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Adv. Mrs. Ananya Ratia, Adv. Mr. Navin Mittal, Adv. Mr. Debargha Banerjee, Adv. …for respondent. The Court : Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. There is a delay of 400 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the explanation offered for not preferring the appeal within time. Therefore, the delay is condoned. The application being GA/1/2026 is allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tax effect in this case is Rs.93,00,900/- which is below the tax limit as prescribed in the CBDT Circular No.9/2024 dated 17th September, 2024 and Circular No.5 of 2024 dated 15th March, 2024 but the case falls within the exceptional category under para 3.1(h) as per CBDT Circular No.5 of 2024 dated 15th March, 2024. 2

We have perused the application, the assessment order, appellate order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax and the order of the learned Tribunal dated 08.11.2024 for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. We do not find any reason to entertain this appeal where the appellant has not clearly suggested which exceptional clause as read in para 3.1(h) as per CBDT Circular No.5 of 2024 dated 15th March, 2024 is applicable in the present appeal. As such, this appeal and the connected application being GA/2/2026 are dismissed as the tax effect in this matter is below Rs. 2 crores. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.) sd/

1 OD – 14 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/183/2026 IA NO: GA/1/2026, GA/2/2026 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL 1, KOLKATA VS RAHGU MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE : THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date : 28th July, 2026 Appearance : Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri, Adv. Mr. Anurag Roy, Adv. …for appellant. Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Adv. Mrs. Ananya Ratia, Adv. Mr. Navin Mittal, Adv. Mr. Debargha Banerjee, Adv. …for respondent. The Court : Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. There is a delay of 400 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the explanation offered for not preferring the appeal within time. Therefore, the delay is condoned. The application being GA/1/2026 is allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tax effect in this case is Rs.93,00,900/- which is below the tax limit as prescribed in the CBDT Circular No.9/2024 dated 17th September, 2024 and Circular No.5 of 2024 dated 15th March, 2024 but the case falls within the exceptional category under para 3.1(h) as per CBDT Circular No.5 of 2024 dated 15th March, 2024. 2

We have perused the application, the assessment order, appellate order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax and the order of the learned Tribunal dated 08.11.2024 for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. We do not find any reason to entertain this appeal where the appellant has not clearly suggested which exceptional clause as read in para 3.1(h) as per CBDT Circular No.5 of 2024 dated 15th March, 2024 is applicable in the present appeal. As such, this appeal and the connected application being GA/2/2026 are dismissed as the tax effect in this matter is below Rs. 2 crores. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.) sd/