THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. AERZEN MACHINES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., VADODARA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal falls within the purview of the CBDT circular regarding low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 62,70,202/- made by the AO. The assessee argued that the appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed based on the tax effect and CBDT circular instructions. The applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 for pending appeals with low tax effect.
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’
PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of ld.CIT(A)- l, Vadodara dated 23.10.2015 passed for the assessment year 2011-12.
The Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the Id.CIT(A) in not upholding the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 92C(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Id.counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that disputed addition is Rs.62,70,202/- which was due to upward revision of ALP under section 92C(3) of the Act by the AO. 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 present appeal of the IT(TP)A No.105/Ahd/2016 2 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 re-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 11th September, 2019 at Ahmedabad.
More judgments on Section 92C(4)
- Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., Coimbatore vs DCIT Company Circle I, CoimbatoreITA 2094/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2026AY 2013-14
- Vodafone West Limited, (Formerly Known As… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), AhmedabadITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
- The Dy CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs Vodafone West Limited, AhmedabadITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
- Wns Business Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd… vs DCIT, New DelhiITA 3353/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2010-11
- United Phosphorus Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT Cen Cir 38, MumbaiITA 6950/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2025AY 2004-05
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- 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