ITO, WARD-3(3)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MANJU RAMESHPRASAD GOENKA, 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 was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular restricts appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs and this case did not fall under any exceptions.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of disallowance of interest. The appeal was filed for Assessment Year 2014-15.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT in light of the CBDT's monetary limit for filing appeals.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh
Date of hearing : 27-08-2019 Date of pronouncement : 11-09-2019 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, arises from order of the CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad dated 05-06-2017, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.
The grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of disallowance of interest u/s. 24(b) of Rs. 1,00,78,007/-.
Page No 2 ITO vs. Manju Rameshprasad Goenka
At the outset, after going through the grounds of appeal and the impugned orders of the Revenue authorities below, a query was raised by the Bench as to applicability and maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue in view of recent CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08-08-2019 restricting the filling of the appeal by the Revenue where the tax effect is below Rs.50 lakhs, the ld. DR did not dispute the same and submitted that the issue is left to the Tribunal to be decided in accordance with law.
4. We find that the appeal of the Revenue is presented on 21.8.2017. On 8.8.2019 the CBDT has issued Instructions bearing No. 17 of 2019 under file No. F. No. F. No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) prohibiting its subordinate authorities from filing of the appeal to the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) where the tax effect by virtue of the relief given by the CIT(A) is less than Rs.50 lakhs. The instructions have been made applicable with retrospective effect, meaning thereby, these instructions are applicable on pending appeals also. In the present case, “tax effect” on the total income assessed minus the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issue against which appeal is filed, is less than Rs.50 lakhs. Further, the case of the Revenue does not fall within the ambit of exceptions provided in the Circular. Thus, 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 accordingly dismissed.
However, it is observed that in case on re-verification at the end of the AO it comes to the notice 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 Page No 3 ITO vs. Manju Rameshprasad Goenka 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.
More judgments on Section 24(b)
- Sweta Somani, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 44(2), KolkataITA 1656/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Dy. Commissioner of Income… vs Thomas Myladiyil Augustine, AhmedabadITA 1131/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Ronakkumar Dipakbhai Shah, Arvalli vs The ITO, Ward-1, ModasaITA 2631/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- ACIT, Circle 5(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Vighnahara Properties Private Limited…ITA 3679/MUM/2026[2018]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026
- ACIT, Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs Vighnahara Properties Private Limited…ITA 3678/MUM/2026[2017]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026