INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHILLONG vs. HOTCHAND KALACHAND LOUNGANI, SHILLONG

PDF · subscribers
ITA 45/GTY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 June 20233 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the case did not fall within the exception clause as neither the constitutional validity of any provision was challenged nor any Board's order was held illegal. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The revenue argued that an exception clause applied.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue's appeal is maintainable when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit and does not fall under any exception clause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

order : June 07, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 10.10.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite notice. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. DR.

3.

It is to be noted that the tax effect involved is less than the prescribed monetary limit by the CBDT for filing appeal to this Tribunal vide Circular No.17 of 2019.

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →