C I T vs. M/S AUTOLITE INDIA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the instant appeal, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac (and therefore less than the prescribed limit for High Court appeals), deserves to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Court reasoned that the circular, which applies retrospectively to pending appeals, mandates that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below the specified monetary limits. The Court clarified that any substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are left open for examination in future appropriate proceedings. It also observed that if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular (e.g., constitutional validity, Board's order held illegal, audit objection accepted, or undisclosed foreign assets), the Revenue is at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
What were the facts?
This Indian ITAT judgment concerns an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in favour of M/s Autolite India. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal is before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The crucial fact is that the tax effect in dispute is less than Rs. 20 lac. The judgment extensively discusses a CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, which revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue to reduce litigation. The circular states that appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed specified monetary limits, including Rs. 20,00,000/- before the High Court. The circular also has provisions for exceptions and applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
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 assessee has not explicitly recorded arguments in the judgment. However, the High Court's decision implies that the assessee would likely rely on the CBDT Circular to argue for dismissal based on the low tax effect. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue has not explicitly recorded arguments in the judgment. However, the Revenue filed the appeal, suggesting they believed it was warranted, possibly due to the nature of the issue or an exception under the circular, though this is not detailed.
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 17/01/2017 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 appeal 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) [ITA-10/2000] 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 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 (3 of 3) [ITA-10/2000] 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 stands dismissed as not pressed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. /bm gandhi 51
More judgments on Section 268A
- Income Tax Officer, Ajmer vs Hemant Kumar Sharma, AjmerITA 1506/JPR/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Income Tax Officer, Indore vs Aashta Doshi, IndoreITA 789/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs Khushal Madhavlal Darji, AhmedabadITA 82/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana vs Hemantkumar Faljibhai Chaudhary, MehsanaITA 475/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Dy. CIT-4(1), Indore vs Kiran Bajpai, IndoreITA 426/IND/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026