THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. KLOECKNER DESMA MACHINERY PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD
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 appeal falls within the purview of the CBDT circular due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed at the threshold.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 75,05,880/- by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs, making the appeal non-maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal when the tax effect is below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT circular.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD - BENCH ‘D’
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld.CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad dated 21.12.2017 passed for the assessment year 2014-15.
Grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition amounting to Rs.75,05,880/- paid to the foreign commission agents.
The Id.counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that disputed amount is Rs.75,05,880/- This addition has been deleted by the Id.CIT(A). Tax effect on the disputed addition would be less than Rs.50 lakhs. He submitted that by virtue of recent CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 8.8.2019, Department has been instructed not to file appeal before the Tribunal where tax effect is below Rs.50 lakhs. This instruction is applicable to the pending cases also. Therefore, the 2 present appeal of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Per contra, the Id.DR did not dispute applicability of the recent CBDT circular and left to the Tribunal to pass appropriate order in the matter.
After hearing both the sides and after perusal of the above CBDT Instruction, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue falls within the purview of the CBDT Instruction cited (supra). It is not disputed by the Revenue that tax effect on the disputed addition is more than Rs.50 lakhs, and therefore, keeping in view the above CBDT circular and provisions of section 268A of the Income Tax Act, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed.
However, it is observed that in case on verification at the end of the AO it can be demonstrated that the tax effect is more, or Revenue's case falls within the ambit of exceptions provided in the Circular, then the Department will be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall of this order. Such application should be filed within the time period prescribed in the Act. In view of the above, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect. Order pronounced in the Court on 23th September, 2019 at Ahmedabad.
More judgments on Section 268A
- Income Tax Officer, Ajmer vs Hemant Kumar Sharma, AjmerITA 1506/JPR/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Income Tax Officer, Indore vs Aashta Doshi, IndoreITA 789/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs Khushal Madhavlal Darji, AhmedabadITA 82/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana vs Hemantkumar Faljibhai Chaudhary, MehsanaITA 475/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Dy. CIT-4(1), Indore vs Kiran Bajpai, IndoreITA 426/IND/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026