What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed appeals when the tax effect was below the prescribed threshold. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Revenue filed appeals before the ITAT against the orders of the CIT(A) for multiple assessment years. The tax effect in these appeals was below the threshold limit prescribed by a CBDT circular for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals before the ITAT due to the tax effect being below the threshold limit set by the CBDT circular.

DCIT vs Sunrise Roadlines, Chaibasa | ITAT Ranchi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, AR

For Respondent: Shri H. Robindro Singh, CIT-DR, Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, AR

Hearing: 30/07/2026Pronounced: 30/07/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 175 to 179/Ran/2026 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2008-09 & 2009-10) D.C.I.T., Sunrise Roadlines, Central Circle, Dist. Board Complex, 1st Floor, Room Vs. Jamshedpur. No. 34, Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand) PAN No. ABDFS 0809 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Department represented by Shri H. Robindro Singh, CIT-DR Assessee represented by Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, AR. Date of hearing 30/07/2026 Date of pronouncement 30/07/2026 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), Patna-3, Patna dated 11/12/2025 for the A.Y. 2010-11, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. All these appeals have common issues, therefore, all were clubbed and heard together and are being decided by this common order. As a lead case, we take up ITA No. 175/Ran/2026 for the A.Y. 2010-11. 2. Shri H. Robindro Singh, ld. CIT-DR is represented on behalf of the revenue and Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. At the outset, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed as the tax effect in this appeal is Rs.11,67,333/- and the revenue should not have filed appeal in view of the CBDT Circular No.

ITA No. 175 to 179/Ran/2026 DCIT Vs Sunrise Roadlines No.09/2024 dated 17.9.2024, whereby the threshold limit for filing of appeals by the Revenue before the ITAT has been fixed at Rs.60 lakhs. It was urged that in compliance to the impugned circular the appeal of the Revenue was non-maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 4. In reply, ld CIT-DR submitted that in the present appeal, the case fell in the exceptions provided in the impugned circular issued by CBDT, therefore, the case may be heard on merits without considering the same in view of CBDT circular. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the orders of the ld CIT(A) clearly show that the tax effect in the present appeal is Rs.11,67,333/- which is less than the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT vide its Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.9.2024 of Rs. 60 lakhs. This being so, the revenue should not have filed appeal where tax effect is below the threshold limit. In view of above, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue on account of tax effect having been become infructuous. 6. In the result, appeal of the revenue stand dismissed. 7. Now we take up ITA No. 176 to 179/Ran/2026 for the A.Y. 2010-11, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively, in these appeals also, the tax effect is less than the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT vide its Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.9.2024 of Rs. 60 lakhs. This being so, the revenue should not have filed appeal where tax effect is below the threshold limit. In view of above, we dismiss the appeals of the revenue on account of tax effect having been become infructuous.

ITA No. 175 to 179/Ran/2026 DCIT Vs Sunrise Roadlines 8. In the result, all these appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 30/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 30/07/2026 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR , JAMSHEDPUR vs. SUNRISE ROADLINES , CHAIBASA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments