ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. GOPIKA VAISHNAV L/H LATE SHRI NILESH CHANDRAKANT VAISHNAV, 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 ITAT held that the appeals were not maintainable as they were hit by CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2018, which prohibits filing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed ten appeals before the ITAT against orders of the CIT(A) concerning various assessees. All appeals involved a tax effect of less than Rs. 20 lakhs.
What were the issues?
Whether appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable when the tax effect is below the threshold stipulated by CBDT instructions. Whether the appeals fall within the exceptions provided in 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 “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Per Pramod Kumar, Vice President :
This bunch of ten appeals by the Revenue, in respect of different assessees, has been filed against separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the respective assessment years mentioned in the cause-title.
At the time of hearing before us, we find prima-facie that all these appeals of the Revenue are hit by CBDT instruction no.3 of 2018 dated 11.08.2018 whereby the Board has prohibited its subordinate authorities from filing of the appeal before 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.20 lakhs. The instructions have been made applicable with retrospective effect, meaning thereby, these instructions are applicable on pending appeals also. In the present case, the tax effect on the quantum disputed by the Revenue does not exceed Rs.20 lakhs. Therefore, the present appeals of the Revenue are hit by the CBDT Circular and hence not maintainable. Further, learned Departmental Representative has not pointed out whether the case of the Revenue fall within the ambit of exceptions provided in the Circular or not. 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 appeals of the Revenue deserve to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed.
However, it is observed that, in case on re-verification at the end of the Assessing Officer 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
Bunch of 10 Appeals Low Tax Effect - <20 lakhs Page 3 of 3 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 appeals of the Revenue are dismissed due to low tax effect.
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 →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026