COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH GARG
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is to be dismissed as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in the instant case was less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the limit prescribed for filing appeals before the High Courts. Paragraph 10 of the circular states that it applies retrospectively to pending appeals, and pending appeals below the specified tax limits may be withdrawn or not pressed. The Tribunal noted that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding if they arise in the future. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tax effect in the present appeal was stated to be less than Rs. 20 lac. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued Circular No. 21/2015 on December 10, 2015, under Section 268A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to reduce litigation by regularizing monetary limits for filing appeals. The circular stipulated that appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed specified monetary limits, including Rs. 10,00,000/- before the Appellate Tribunal and Rs. 20,00,000/- before the High Court. The circular also stated that it would apply 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/- for High Court appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Revenue argued that the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed, acknowledging that the tax effect is below the prescribed limit for High Court appeals. The Revenue relied on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, specifically paragraphs 3 and 10, which mandate not filing appeals below certain tax effect limits and allow for withdrawal of pending appeals below these limits. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
-1- D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.24/2002
Date of Order : 26.07.2016. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA Mr. Anuroop Singhi Adv., for appellant. ***** 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 :- 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
-2- (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. 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 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 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
-3- if so advised. Accordingly, in the light of the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 the appeal stands dismissed as not pressed.
(J.K. RANKA),J.
(AJAY RASTOGI),J. S. Kumawat. S. Kumawat. Jr. P.A. Jr. P.A.
More judgments on Section 268A(1)
- DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs C K Entertainments Private Limited…ITA 967/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Heard7 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
- DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs C K Entertainments Private Limited…ITA 964/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Heard7 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central… vs Radhakrishnan Nair Parameswaran Pillai…ITA 535/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
- Assistnat Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS… vs English House, KozhikodeITA 722/COCH/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2025AY 2021-22
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jalgaon vs Amrut Nana Chaudhari, JalgaonITA 317/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026