C I T-1 JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAVI SANCHETI

ITA/664/2011HC RajasthanRJHC02023244201103 October 20174 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tax effect in dispute was less than Rs. 20 lakh. The High Court noted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 21/2015, issued under Section 268A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, supersedes previous instructions and regularizes monetary limits for filing appeals. This circular aims to reduce litigation. The circular specifies monetary limits for appeals before the Appellate Tribunal (Rs. 10,00,000), High Court (Rs. 20,00,000), and Supreme Court (Rs. 25,00,000). It also clarifies that appeals should not be filed merely because the tax effect exceeds these limits, and filing should be decided on merits. The circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the instant appeal, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lakh, deserves to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular, which applies retrospectively to pending appeals, sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000 for filing appeals before the High Court. While the circular provides exceptions for certain issues (e.g., constitutional validity, Board's orders being held illegal, revenue audit objections accepted, or additions relating to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts), the court did not find these exceptions applicable or argued in this specific instance. The court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue before the High Court is maintainable, given that the tax effect is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000 as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondent assessee. However, the court's decision is based on the application of the CBDT Circular. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the Revenue's contentions. However, the Revenue filed the appeal, implying an intention to contest the matter on its merits, despite the tax effect being below the stipulated limit. The court's observation regarding exceptions in the circular suggests the Revenue might have implicitly argued for the appeal to be heard on merits if it fell under an exception, or the court is providing an avenue for them to do so.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A(1),Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 664 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Shri Ravi Sancheti, 176, Haldiyon Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. Aditya Vijay For Respondent(s) : _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS

Order 03/10/2017

1.

Instant appeal is directed against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and indisputably the tax effect as brought to our notice, is less than Rs.20 lac.

2.

A Circular No.21/2015 has been issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 10.12.2015 in exercise of its power u/sec. 268A (1) of the Income-tax Act 1961 in supersession of the Boards instruction No.5/2014 dt.10.7.2014 regularising the monetary limits for filing the appeals by the Revenue before the Tribunal, High Courts and Apex Court with an object for reducing litigation. Relevant para nos.3, 8, 9 and 10 reads ad infra :- “3. Henceforth, appeals/SLPs sha

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 268A(1)

All 99 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →