INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER vs. HEMANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

ITA 1506/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 October 2026AY 2021-223 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that both appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the preliminary objection raised by the assessee concerning the CBDT Circulars prescribing a monetary limit for filing appeals. The tax effect in AY 2020-21 was Rs. 7,12,014 and in AY 2021-22 was Rs. 1,93,718, both of which were below the Rs. 60 lakh limit stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 and Circular No. 5/2024. The Revenue's representative failed to demonstrate that the present appeals fell within any of the exceptions provided in these circulars, despite being given an opportunity. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification for entertaining the appeals. The operative direction was to dismiss both appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed two appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, for Assessment Years (AY) 2020-21 and 2021-22, challenging orders passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee, Hemant Kumar Sharma, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of these appeals. The objection was based on CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 and Circular No. 5/2024, which prescribe a monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeals before the Tribunal. The tax effect in AY 2020-21 was Rs. 7,12,014, and in AY 2021-22, it was Rs. 1,93,718. Both amounts were below the stipulated limit. The Revenue's representative could not demonstrate that the appeals fell within any exceptions to the circulars.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue's appeals are maintainable before the Tribunal in light of CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 and Circular No. 5/2024, which prescribe a monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for filing appeals, given that the tax effect in the present cases is below this limit? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that both appeals are not maintainable as the tax effect in each assessment year is significantly below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circulars. The assessee relied on CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, issued under Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue initially submitted that the issue involved falls within the exceptions prescribed under the aforesaid Circulars. However, upon being presented with a Central Scrutiny Report from the Assessing Officer which recommended against filing appeals due to low tax effect and stated that the issue did not fall within any exceptions, the Revenue's representative could neither controvert the report nor demonstrate that the appeals met any prescribed exceptions. No explanation was provided for the authorization of the appeals by the Principal Commissioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR

Hearing: 14.10.2026Pronounced: 21.10.2026

Per Shri Om Prakash Kant, AM :-

These two appeals by the Revenue are directed against separate orders, both dated 30.03.2026, passed by the learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), A-12, Asst. Year: 2020-21 and 2021-22 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “the learned CIT(A)”], for Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22, respectively.

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee raised a preliminary objection that both appeals are not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, read with CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 date

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 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →