The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Osd 1 vs. Shri Kailash Khandelwal

PDF · subscribers
ITA/119/2021HC Madhya Pradesh11 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 is not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, issued on 15/03/2024, and subsequently amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, supersedes the earlier Circulars dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the later circulars do not provide for an exception clause similar to 10(C) that would allow filing an appeal irrespective of the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, as the tax effect of Rs. 7,73,000/- was below the prescribed limits and no exception clause was available in the superseding circulars, the appeal was dismissed. The Revenue was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.

What were the facts?

The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore. The appeal was preferred by the Revenue due to dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's decision. The core issue revolved around the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the High Court, specifically concerning the monetary limits for appeals as stipulated by CBDT Circulars. The tax effect involved in the case was Rs. 7,73,000/-, which was below the limits specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. The Revenue sought to rely on exception Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 for filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before this Court under exception Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, notwithstanding that the tax effect involved (Rs. 7,73,000/-) is below the monetary limits specified in subsequent CBDT Circulars (No. 17/2019 and No. 5/2024)? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (Shri Kailash Khandelwal) regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The focus of the judgment is on the Revenue's appeal and the applicability of CBDT circulars. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that their appeal was entertainable before the High Court under exception Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, despite the tax effect being below the stipulated monetary limits in later circulars. They relied on the existence of this exception clause in the earlier circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260(A)

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 11th OF FEBRUARY, 2025 INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 119 of 2021 THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OSD 1 Versus SHRI KAILASH KHANDELWAL Appearance: Shri Harsh Parashar - senior standing counsel with Shri Shantanu Sharma - counsel for the appellant. Shri Arun Dwivedi - 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.562/IND/2019 dated 30/04/2021. 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.7,73,000/-, 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-119-2021 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3551 Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 20-02-2025 14:10:59 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 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. HS

2 ITA-119-2021 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3551 Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 20-02-2025 14:10:59 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 260(A)

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260(A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →