INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPANTAM vs. RAGHU RAM YELLAPU, VISAKHAPATNAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 808/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 July 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit and did not fall under any exceptions. The assessee's cross-objection was allowed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order that quashed a notice issued under Section 148. The tax effect in the appeal was Rs. 41.38 lakhs, which is below the CBDT's monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs for filing appeals to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit set by the CBDT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA 808/VIZ/2025
C.O. No. 2/VIZ/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. In the above cited case, the Revenue has filed an appeal by challenging the order of Ld.CIT(A) where the First Appellate authority has quashed the notice issued under section 148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (in short “JAO”). From the Form No. 36 r.w. Rule 47(1) of the Act filed by the Revenue, the total income disputed in appeal is Rs.1.25 crores and the tax effect would be Rs.41.38 lakhs. Hence the Bench has directed the Learned Departmental Representative (hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”) to mention whether the case falls under any exception carved out by the CBDT circular with regard to filing of appeals to the ITAT unless the tax effect is more than Rs.60 lakhs. Ld.DR has fairly admitted that the case does not fall under any exception and accepted that the tax effect is Rs.41.38 lakhs. In view of the same, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as the monetary limits fixed by the CBDT for filing an appeal to ITAT is Rs.60 Lakhs and above, whereas in this case the tax effect is less than that and the case does not fall under the exceptions mentioned in the CBDT Circular.

2.

The cross objection filed by the appellant mentioned that the tax effect in this case is only Rs.41.38 lakhs. i.e., less than Rs.60 lakhs and hence the Learned Authorized Representative (hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”) of the appellant requested the Bench that the appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed due to mandatory limits fixed by the CBDT in this regard. The Cross objection filed by the appellant is allowed.

3.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- RAVISH SOOD OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Visakhapatnam Dated: 10.07.2026 Giridhar, Sr.PS 2

ITA 808/VIZ/2025 & CO 2/VIZ/2026 RAGHU RAM YELLAPU Copy to: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), 4TH FLOOR, DIRECT TAXES BUILDING, 1 M V P DOUBLE ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM-530017, ANDHRA PRADESH RAGHU RAM YELLAPU, 11-2-12/1, FLAT-S2, HEMA MANSION APTS, 2 DASAPALLA HILLS, VISAKHAPATNAM/ 31-32- 28, ALLIPURAM,, VISAKHAPATNAM-530004, ANDHRA PRADESH 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →