Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Shri Raunak Maru

PDF · subscribers
ITA/23/2022HC 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 the tax effect of Rs.1,41,97,379/- was below the monetary limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. Crucially, the Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, which superseded the earlier circulars of 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019, did not provide for any exception clause (like 10(C)) that would permit filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being less than the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the superseding circular, the appeal was found to be not maintainable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), the 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, in IT(SS)A No.195/IND/2017 dated 16.08.2021. The sole issue was the entertainability of the Revenue's appeal before the High Court under exception Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11/07/2018. The tax effect involved in the case was Rs.1,41,97,379/-, which was below the monetary limits specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024. The High Court considered subsequent circulars, including Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, which superseded earlier ones.

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.1,41,97,379/-) is below the monetary limits specified in subsequent CBDT Circulars No. 17/2019 and 5/2024? Assessee (Revenue's appeal before High Court): The Revenue contended that its appeal was maintainable under exception Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No.3/2018, which allows appeals despite lower tax effect under certain circumstances. Revenue (Assessee's argument before High Court): The Revenue argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limits and the exception clause relied upon was superseded by later circulars that did not provide for such an exception.

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 5th OF FEBRUARY, 2025 INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 23 of 2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) Versus SHRI RAUNAK MARU Appearance: Shri Harsh Parashar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. 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.195/IND/2017 dated 16.08.2021. 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.1,41,97,379/-, 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-23-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2981 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-23-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2981 Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 06-02-2025 10:15:18 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 →