ITO, CHENNAI vs. NARESH SANGEETA, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1255/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 June 2026AY 2018-193 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 monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. The appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which allowed the assessee's appeal on a legal ground. The assessee had declared Long Term Capital Gain which the AO considered non-genuine.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before the Tribunal in light of the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT circulars for departmental appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: MS. PADMAVATHY.S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 04.12.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

2.

The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 on 31.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.9,94,910/- The assessee

ITA No.1255/Chny/2026 Naresh Sangeeta :- 2 -:

subsequently filed the revised return on 10.10.2018 including Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.35,33,957. The AO held that the LTCG declared by the assessee is non-genuine and accordingly treated the same unexplained credit and also considered 3% of the sale consideration as unexplained expenditure. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) allowed the appeal on legal ground. The revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal.

3.

We have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld AR at the outset submitted that the tax effect involved in the present appeal filed by the Revenue is below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the Tribunal. In this regard we notice that the CBDT, in exercise of powers conferred under section 268A of the Act, has issued Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, as amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, enhancing the monetary threshold for filing departmental appeals before the Tribunal to ₹60 lakhs. The said circulars have been issued with the object of reducing litigation and are binding on the Income-tax Department. In the present case, the Revenue has not demonstrated that the disputed tax effect exceeds the prescribed monetary limit or that the case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in the aforesaid circulars. Therefore, in view of the binding CBDT instructions issued under section 268A of the Act, the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues raised in the grounds of appeal, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable on account of low tax effect. However, liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek recall of this order, if it is subsequently

ITA No.1255/Chny/2026 Naresh Sangeeta :- 3 -:

found that the tax effect exceeds the prescribed monetary limit or that the case is covered by any of the exceptions provided in the relevant CBDT Circulars.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 15th day of June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार िग"र) (पदमावती यस) (Manu Kumar Giri) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य / Judicial Member सद�य लेखा लेखा चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 15th June, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S

आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु!/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA EJTADA DURGA NARESH NARESH Date: 2026.06.19 10:31:10 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →