COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAI vs. SATYA NARAIN GOYAL

ITA/384/2009HC RajasthanRJHC02005131200805 September 2012Author: ARUN MISHRA,NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jaipur-III, Jaipur (appellant/revenue) preferred an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench. The ITAT had deleted a penalty of Rs. 2,67,408/- imposed under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act on Shri Satya Narain Goyal (Sethi) (respondent/assessee). A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent that the appeal should not be entertained as the monetary limit of the case was below Rs. 4,00,000/-, citing a Circular dated 24.10.2005.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal is not maintainable. The Court noted that Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was amended retrospectively from 01.04.1999 by the Finance Act, 2008, giving statutory force to CBDT instructions regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The Circular dated 24.10.2005 prescribed a monetary limit of Rs. 4,00,000/- for filing appeals under Section 260A to the High Court. The Court further observed that the Notification dated 09.02.2011 clarified that 'Tax Effect' includes penalty, and the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court is Rs. 10,00,000/-. Since the penalty amount in dispute (Rs. 2,67,408/-) was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 4,00,000/-, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is maintainable before the High Court, considering the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circulars? The revenue contended that the appeal is maintainable. The assessee raised a preliminary objection that the appeal should not be entertained due to the monetary limit being below Rs. 4,00,000/-, as per the Circular dated 24.10.2005. The judgment also notes the retrospective amendment of Section 268A of the Act by the Finance Act, 2008, which empowers the Board to issue orders fixing monetary limits for filing appeals. The judgment further refers to a Notification dated 09.02.2011, which substituted 'Tax Effect' with 'Monetary Limit' and revised the limits for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 158BFA(2),Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-III, JAIPUR VS. SHRI SATYA NARAIN GOYAL(SETHI).

Date: 05.09.2012 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr. Sameer Jain, for the appellant.

Mr. Naresh Gupta, for the respondent.

Appeal has been preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), questioning the legality of the order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the ITAT'), deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,67,408/- imposed under Section 158 BFA (2) of the Act.

Preliminary objection has been raised that since monetary limit in the instant case is below Rs. 4,00,000/-, in view of Circular dated 24.10.2005, the appeal should not be entertained. Provisions of Section 268A have been amended with retrospective effect w.e.f. 01.04.1999 vide the Finance Act, 2008. Following is the provision inserted by way of Finance Act, 2008: “268A. (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue orders, inst

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 158BFA(2)

All 70 judgments and leading authorities on Section 158BFA(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →