THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KOCHI vs. SHRI.ROY M.MATHEW
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the appeals were not maintainable. The Court observed that the valuation of the subject appeals was less than the limit stipulated by the CBDT Circular. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in S.C. Naregal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which dealt with the effect of CBDT Circulars on appeals below the prescribed monetary limit, the High Court concluded that the present appeals were also covered by this precedent. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of maintainability, without delving into the merits of the case.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kochi (Revenue) against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, dated October 25, 2016. The appeals concerned Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, with Roy M. Mathew as the respondent assessee. The High Court noted that the value in the appeals was less than the limit prescribed by a CBDT Circular. The Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment in S.C. Naregal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which considered the effect of CBDT Circulars and dismissed appeals falling within their purview.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable, given that the value in dispute is below the monetary limit stipulated by the CBDT Circular. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the High Court's decision implies that the assessee would have relied on the CBDT Circular and the Supreme Court's decision in S.C. Naregal to argue for the dismissal of the appeals. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue. However, by filing the appeals, the Revenue would have implicitly argued for their maintainability despite the monetary limit, or that the circular did not apply in this specific instance.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT S.V.Bhatti,J. Heard learned Standing Counsel Mr. Jose Joseph and learned Counsel Mr. Mohan Pulikkal for parties.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue is the appellant. Mr Roy M Mathew/Assessee is the respondent. The subject appeals are at the instance of the Revenue from the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal'), Cochin Bench in ITA Nos.210 & 211/Coch/2016 dated 25.10.2016. The appeals deal with the Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 3. The value in the appeals is less than the limit prescribed by CBDT Circular. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in S.C.Naregal v Commissioner of Income Tax-(2019)1 has considered the effect of CBDT Circular and dismissed the appeal coming within the purport of CBDT Circular.
The valuation of the subject appeal since is less than the 1 418 ITR 455 (SC)
ITA Nos.20/2017, 21/2017 -4- limit stipulated by CBDT Circular, the judgment of Apex Court in S.C.Naregal (supra) is applicable to the appeal. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment and the latest circular, we are of the view that the appeals are not maintainable, hence are dismissed. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE BASANT BALAJI JUDGE JS
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
