I T JAIPUR vs. N L KUMBHAJ
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the instant appeal, filed by the Revenue, is to be dismissed as not pressed. This decision is based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in this case is indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac, the limit prescribed for appeals before the High Court. The Court clarified that any substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue is at liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular (e.g., constitutional validity, Board's order being illegal, revenue audit objection accepted, or undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts). The ratio decidendi is that appeals with tax effects below prescribed monetary limits are to be dismissed as not pressed, unless they fall under specific exceptions or are decided on merits.
What were the facts?
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (CIT-I) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Shri N.L. Kumbhaj. The tax effect in dispute is less than Rs. 20 lac. The appeal was filed before the High Court. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued Circular No. 21/2015 on 10.12.2015, which supersedes earlier instructions and regularizes monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue before various judicial forums, including the High Courts. The circular aims to reduce litigation. The High Court noted that the tax effect in this case is below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before it.
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 Rs. 20 lac, as stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not present any arguments as the appeal was being considered for dismissal based on the CBDT circular. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue filed the appeal, but the High Court's decision hinges on the applicability of the CBDT circular and its monetary limits. The circular, in paragraph 10, states that pending appeals below the specified tax limits may be withdrawn or not pressed. The Revenue's appeal, with a tax effect less than Rs. 20 lac, falls within this category.
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 D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.316/2008 CIT-I Vs. Shri N.L. Kumbhaj Date of Order ::: 12.04.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
M.N. BHANDARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Mr.JK Singhi, for the appellant(s). Mr. Naresh Gupta, for the respondent(s). 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
2 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. 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
3 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
4 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. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J (M.N. BHANDARI),J sunita/82 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(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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026