COMMISSIONER I T vs. M/S ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIE
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. The Court noted that the tax effect in the instant case was indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals before the High Courts. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals, if any, were 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 specified in the circular, such as constitutional validity challenges or adverse rulings on Board's instructions. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with tax effect below the prescribed monetary limits, and not falling under specific exceptions, should be withdrawn or not pressed in accordance with the CBDT circulars aimed at reducing litigation.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, against M/s Associated Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd. The tax effect in these appeals was stated to be less than Rs. 20 lac. The appeals were directed against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued Circular No. 21/2015 on December 10, 2015, superseding earlier instructions and regularizing monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue before various judicial forums, including the High Courts, with the objective of reducing litigation. This circular was to apply retrospectively to pending appeals.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue before the High Court are maintainable given that the tax effect is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 20 lac, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Assessee's contention: The assessee did not make any specific arguments recorded in the judgment. The judgment focuses on the applicability of the CBDT circular. Revenue's contention: The Revenue relied on the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, which stipulated monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue acknowledged that the tax effect in the instant case was less than Rs. 20 lac, the limit for High Court appeals. The Revenue also implicitly accepted that pending appeals below the specified tax limits could be withdrawn or not pressed, as per paragraph 10 of the circular.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 AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR 1. D.B. Income Tax Reference No.6/1999 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur Vs. M/s Associated Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd., Ramganj Mandi (Kota) 2. D.B. Income Tax Reference No.3/1999 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur Vs. M/s Associated Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd., Ramganj Mandi 3. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.17/2001 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur Vs. M/s Associated Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd., Ramganj Mandi Date of Order ::: 24.05.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
M.N. BHANDARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA Mrs. Parinitoo Jain, for revenue. Mr. GS Bapna, Senior Advocate with Mr. RS Mehta, for the respondent-assessee. Instant appeals are 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
2 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 :- 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 8. 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.
3 9. 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. 10. 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 pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals, subject to exceptions where the tax effect even if is less than
4 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 stand dismissed as not pressed. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file. (J.K. RANKA),J (M.N. BHANDARI),J sunita/42-44
5 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. Sunita Kanwar Jr.P.A.
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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026