DCIT CC 8 (2), MUMBAI vs. ANTIQUE STOCK BROKING LIMITED, MUMBAI

At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee raised a At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee raised a At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Revenue’s preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Revenue’s preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Revenue’s appeal on the ground of low tax effect, placing reliance upon the appeal on the ground of low tax effect, placing reliance upon the appeal on the ground of low tax effect, placing reliance upon the Circulars issued by the Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes Direct Taxes (CBDT) prescribing monetary limits for filing departmental appeals. It prescribing monetary limits for filing departmental appeals. It prescribing monetary limits for filing departmental appeals. It was submitted that in terms of was submitted that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, as further enhanced by further enhanced by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, the monetary , the monetary threshold for filing appeals before the Income Tax A threshold for filing appeals before the Income Tax A threshold for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal stands at Rs. 60,00,000/ Tribunal stands at Rs. 60,00,000/-. The tax effect involved in the . The tax effect involved in the present appeal is only Rs. 48,48,156/ present appeal is only Rs. 48,48,156/- as reflected in Form No. as reflected in Form No. 36, which is below the prescribed limit. 36, which is below the prescribed limit.

The learned Departmental Representative was specifically The learned Departmental Representative was specifically The learned Departmental Representative was specifically called upon to demonstrate whether the present case falls within called upon to demonstrate whether the present case falls within called upon to demonstrate whether the present case falls within any of exceptions carved out in the aforesaid Circulars, such as any of exceptions carved out in the aforesaid Circulars, such as any of exceptions carved out in the aforesaid Circulars, such as cases involving constitutional validity of statutory provisions, cases involving constitutional validity of statutory provisions, cases involving constitutional validity of statutory provisions, undisclosed foreign income or assets, information from external sclosed foreign income or assets, information from external sclosed foreign income or assets, information from external

In view of the foregoing, the appeal filed by the Revenue, In view of the foregoing, the appeal filed by the Revenue, In view of the foregoing, the appeal filed by the Revenue, being below the threshold prescribed under being below the threshold prescribed under CBDT Circular No. CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 read with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, is held to be not , is held to be not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the Revenue to seek recall of this order in the event it the Revenue to seek recall of this order in the event it the Revenue to seek recall of this order in the event it is subsequently demonstrated that the case falls within any of is subsequently demonstrated that the case falls within any of is subsequently demonstrated that the case falls within any of the exceptions provided in the aforesaid Circulars, or in case of the exceptions provided in the aforesaid Circulars, or in case of the exceptions provided in the aforesaid Circulars, or in case of any computational error in determining the tax effect. any computational error in determining the tax effect. any computational error in determining the tax effect.

Insofar as the cross the cross-objection filed by the assessee is objection filed by the assessee is concerned, it is noted that there is a delay of 14 days in its filing. concerned, it is noted that there is a delay of 14 days in its filing. concerned, it is noted that there is a delay of 14 days in its filing. However, since the Revenue’s appeal itself has been dismissed as However, since the Revenue’s appeal itself has been dismissed as However, since the Revenue’s appeal itself has been dismissed as non-maintainable, the cross maintainable, the cross-objection, being merely supportive in objection, being merely supportive in nature, does not survive for independent adjudication and is does not survive for independent adjudication and is does not survive for independent adjudication and is rendered infructuous. We, therefore, refrain from expressing any rendered infructuous. We, therefore, refrain from expressing any rendered infructuous. We, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion either on the question of condonation of delay or on the opinion either on the question of condonation of delay or on the opinion either on the question of condonation of delay or on the merits of the grounds raised therein. merits of the grounds raised therein.

In the result, the appeal of t In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as non he Revenue is dismissed as non- maintainable, and the cross maintainable, and the cross-objection of the assessee is objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. dismissed as infructuous.