Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 vs. M/S Rahul Agritech Private Limited

PDF · subscribers
ITA/211/2022HC 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 was not maintainable. The Court noted 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 of 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. The latest circulars do not provide for an exception clause like 10(C) that would allow filing an appeal despite the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open, and the appellant would be at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (appellant) 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 challenged the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal under Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The tax effect involved in the case was Rs. 3,14,000, which was below the monetary limits specified in subsequent CBDT Circulars No. 17/2019 and 5/2024. The respondent, M/s Rahul Agritech Private Limited, was not represented before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue before the High Court is maintainable under Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, notwithstanding that the tax effect involved (Rs. 3,14,000) is below the monetary limits prescribed in subsequent CBDT Circulars (No. 17/2019 and 5/2024). Assessee (Revenue in this context): The appeal is not maintainable as the tax effect is below the prescribed limits and no exception clause applies. Revenue (Appellant): The appeal is maintainable under Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which provides an exception for filing appeals even if the tax effect is below the monetary limit.

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. 211 of 2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Versus M/S RAHUL AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED Appearance: Shri Harsh Parashar - senior standing counsel with Shri Shantanu Sharma - counsel for the appellant. None 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 IT(SS)A No.136/IND/2019 dated 15/03/2022. 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.3,14,000/-, 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-211-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3584 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 question of law raised in this appeal shall remain open and the appellant would be at liberty to file application, in case cause of action survives as per law. HS

2 ITA-211-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3584 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 →