C I T JAIPUR II JAIPUR vs. SHRI MAHENDRA R SARAF
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not pressed, primarily due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 20 lakh, which is the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 for filing appeals before the High Court. The Court noted that the circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed. However, 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 also granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular, such as those relating to constitutional validity or adverse rulings on Board's orders/circulars.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jaipur II, Jaipur (the Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect in dispute was less than Rs. 20 lakh. The High Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, dated December 10, 2015, issued under Section 268A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue. This circular aimed to reduce litigation. The appeal was filed before the High Court, where the monetary limit for filing appeals was Rs. 20,00,000/- as per 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 Rs. 20 lakh, the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 for appeals before the High Court? Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee, Shri Mahendra R Saraf. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue's primary action was filing the appeal. The judgment implies that the Revenue relied on the appeal process, but their specific arguments on the merits of the case or against the applicability of the circular are not detailed. The Revenue's appeal was filed against the ITAT's order, suggesting a disagreement with that decision, but the grounds for this disagreement are not elaborated in the provided text.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Judgment / Order 02/02/2017
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. 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 shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder :-
(2 of 3) S. No. Appeals in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs.) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 2 Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3 Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case. 4. xxx xxx xxx 5. xxx xxx xxx 6. xxx xxx xxx 7. xxx xxx xxx
Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect: (a) Where the Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule are under challenge, or (b) Where Board's order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or (c) Where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, or (d) Where the addition relates to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts.
The monetary limits specified in para 3 above shall not apply to writ matters and direct tax matters other than Income tax. Filing of appeals in other Direct tax matters shall continue to be governed by relevant provisions of statute & rules. Further, filing of appeal in cases of Income Tax, where the tax effect is not quantifiable or not involved, such as the case of registration of trusts or institutions under section 12 A of the IT Act, 1961, shall not be governed by the limits specified in para 3 above and decision to file appeal in such cases may be taken on merits of a particular case.
This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.” The extract of the paragraphs referred to supra, clearly indicates that the limits specified in para 3 may not apply to (3 of 3) certain exceptions specified in para 8, at the same time para nos.9 and 10 of the Circular if read conjointly, clearly envisages that the present instructions will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals, subject to exceptions where the tax effect even if is less than Rs.20 lac, can be preferred in High Courts. Taking note of the CBDT Circular dt. 10/12/2015 and the tax effect which indisputably in the instant case is less than Rs.20 lac, much less than what has been prescribed for filing appeals before the High Courts, deserves to be dismissed as not pressed. However, it is made clear that the substantial questions of law raised in the instant appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding, if arises in future. At the same time we consider it appropriate to observe that if the appeal falls in any of the exceptions as referred to in the Circular dt. 10/12/2015, the Revenue will be at liberty to move an application for recalling of the order if so advised. Accordingly, in the light of the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. A.Sharma/128
More judgments on Section 268A(1)
- DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs C K Entertainments Private Limited…ITA 967/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Heard7 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
- DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs C K Entertainments Private Limited…ITA 964/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Heard7 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central… vs Radhakrishnan Nair Parameswaran Pillai…ITA 535/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
- Assistnat Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS… vs English House, KozhikodeITA 722/COCH/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2025AY 2021-22
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jalgaon vs Amrut Nana Chaudhari, JalgaonITA 317/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026