C I T JAIPUR vs. TEERY TREASURE INDIA PVT LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the instant appeal, having a tax effect less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the prescribed limit for filing appeals before the High Court as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, deserves to be dismissed as not pressed. The court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate future proceeding. The court also observed that if the appeal falls within any of the exceptions mentioned in the Circular dated 10.12.2015, the Revenue is at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not pressed in light of the CBDT Circular.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning Terry Treasure (India) Pvt. Ltd. The ITAT's observation, noted by the High Court, was that the Assessing Officer (AO) had erred in fact and law in imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,66,920/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tax effect in the present appeal was brought to the court's notice and was stated to be less than Rs. 20 lac. The court considered CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue.
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? The Revenue contended that the appeal was filed against an order of the ITAT. The tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lac. The court noted the observation of the ITAT regarding the AO's error in imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The court also considered CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue did not explicitly argue for the appeal to be heard on merits despite the low tax effect, but the court's decision hinges on the applicability of the circular.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. DB INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.572/2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur. Versus Terry Treasure (India) Pvt. Ltd., C-20, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur (Pan/Gir No AACCT 1664J). DATE OF ORDER ::: 02.12.2016. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Mr. R.B. Mathur for the appellant. BY THE COURT:
In view of the observation made in page 12 which reads as under: “The ld. AO has erred in fact and law in imposing penalty of Rs.15,66,920/- u/s271(1)(c)”.
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 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
3 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 appeal 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 appeals, 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. (DINESH MEHTA), J. (K.S. JHAVERI), J. Asheesh Kr. Yadav 27
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026