Income Tax Department vs. M/S Ad Manum Finance Ltd.

ITA/107/2022HC Madhya Pradesh05 February 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI2 pages

For Petitioner: Veena Mandlik

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024, superseded the earlier Circular No. 3/2018 and Circular No. 17/2019. Crucially, the Court observed that the latest circulars did not provide for an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would allow an appeal to be filed despite the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circulars at the time of the decision, the appeal, with a tax effect of Rs. 1.13 Crore, did not meet the criteria for entertainability. The ratio decidendi is that appeals must adhere to the monetary limits and exception clauses as stipulated in the most current CBDT circulars. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Department (appellant) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. This appeal challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, in ITA No.1/IND/2020 dated 29.06.2021. The core issue revolved around the entertainability of the Revenue's appeal before the High Court, specifically concerning the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circulars. The tax effect involved in the case was Rs. 1.13 Crore, which was below the limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is entertainable before this Court under exception Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11/07/2018, notwithstanding that the tax effect involved (Rs. 1.13 Crore) is below the monetary limits specified in subsequent CBDT Circulars (No. 17/2019 and No. 5/2024)? Assessee (Revenue) Contentions: The Revenue argued that the appeal was maintainable, likely relying on the exception clause in the earlier circular. The judgment does not explicitly record the Revenue's arguments but implies they sought to invoke an exception to the monetary limit. Revenue (Assessee) Contentions: The Revenue contended that the appeal was not maintainable because the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limits and that the subsequent circulars superseded the earlier ones without retaining the specific exception clause relied upon.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH ON THE 5th OF FEBRUARY, 2025 INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 107 of 2022 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Versus M/S AD MANUM FINANCE LTD. Appearance: Shri Harsh Parashar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. Shri Ibrahim Kannodwala, learned counsel for the respondent. ORDER Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari The instant appeal under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, in ITA No.1/IND/2020 dated 29.06.2021. The only controversy seems to be involved in the case as to whether the appeal filed by the Revenue would be entertainable before this Court under exception Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11/07/2018. Admittedly, the tax effect involved in the case is Rs.1.13 Crore, which is below the monetary limit as specified in the Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024. 1 ITA-107-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2968 Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 06-02-2025 10:15:18 Signature Not Verified

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE (GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE On perusal of the Circular dated 15/03/2024, which was later on, amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024 issued by CBDT supersedes the Circular dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019, it is seen that it does not provide exception clause i.e. 10(C), wherein the appeal can be filed notwithstanding the fact that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits under the exceptions given. In view of above, the appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, same is hereby dismissed. However, the appellant would be at liberty to file application, in case cause of action survives as per law. VS

2 ITA-107-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2968 Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 06-02-2025 10:15:18 Signature Not Verified

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →