ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S EDWELL INFRASTRUTURE HAZIRA LTD, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limits set by CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2014-15. The assessee argued that the tax effect of the disallowance and addition was below the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limits as per CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 19.09.2022 for AY. 2014-15.
At the outset, it was brought to our notice by the Ld. AR of the assessee that the revenue appeal is hit by the tax effect since the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) has been made by the AO only to the tune of Rs.9,55,878/- and addition in respect of Employees Contribution of Provident Fund was also to the tune of Rs.2,24,989/-. Thus total addition made by AO was only to the tune of Rs.11,80,867/-. And therefore in the light of the CBDT Circular the department ought not to have filed the appeal against the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A). 3. We have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. During the course of hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee pointed out that tax effect involved in this appeal A.Y. 2014-15 M/s. Edwell Infrastructure Hazira Ltd. filed by the revenue is less than Rs. 50 lacs and in view of latest CBDT circular No. 3/2018 dated 11-7-2018, and also modified circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019, appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and needs to be dismissed. The Ld. AR, further pointed out that, the issue involved in this appeal does not appear to be covered by exception provided under clause (e) of subsequent circular and therefore, if required the revenue may be allowed to file miscellaneous application to re-call the order. We, find that, the CBDT, recently had issued a circular no. 3/2018 dated 11-7-2018, superseding its earlier circular no. 21/2015 and enhanced monetary limit for filing appeal before various appellate authorities and accordingly, enhanced monetary limit to Rs.20,00,000/- for filing appeal before the Tribunal. Further, the board has issued one more circular vide Circular no.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 and enhanced monetary limit for filing appeal before appellate Tribunal to Rs. 50,00,000/-. Further, in the said circular, the CBDT had instructed its officer’s to file application for withdrawal of appeal already filed or not to pursue pending appeals. We, therefore, by taking into account the CBDT circular No. 3/2018 dated 11-7-2018 and Circular no.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 and also considering the fact that tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than the amount of monetary limit fixed by the CBDT for not filing appeal, dismiss this appeal filed by the revenue as not maintainable. However, we keep open the option to the revenue to file a miscellaneous application, if necessary, in case the issues involved in the present appeal comes within the exceptions as provided in para 10 A.Y. 2014-15 M/s. Edwell Infrastructure Hazira Ltd. of said circular and clause (e) of subsequent circular.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 31/01/2023.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026