ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. I S P CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6830/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 November 2022AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the Rs. 50 lakhs threshold and that the issue did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as per the CBDT circular.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The assessee's representative pointed out a CBDT circular mandating that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be pursued.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed based on a CBDT circular that sets a monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Akash Shukla, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Hearing: 09/11/2022Pronounced: 09/11/2022

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J. M.:

1.

1.

The appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order dated 29.08.2018 in appeal No. 303/16-17 for assessment year 2014-15 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-35, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or in short „Ld. F.A.A.‟) in regard to the appeal before it arising out of assessment order dated 20.12.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by Addl. CIT, Special Range, 4, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer or „AO‟).

2. At the outset of the hearing itself, the ld. AR brought to our attention that CBDT, vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 has decided that the Revenue would not prefer an appeal before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs.50 lakhs. Therefore, he pleaded that the appeal of the Revenue be decided as per the instruction of the CBDT. Ld DR did not controvert the same.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →