Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 vs. M/S Brilliant Estate Ltd.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/25/2022HC 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 observed that the tax effect involved was Rs.1,03,63,360/, which was below the monetary limits specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. Crucially, the Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17/09/2024, which superseded earlier circulars including Circular No. 3/2018, did not provide an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would permit filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of maintainability. 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 (Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The appeal challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore, in ITA No.652/IND/2019 dated 29.06.2021. The core issue was the maintainability 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.1,03,63,360/, which was below the limits stipulated in Circular No. 17/2019 and 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 the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits? Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limits, and the relevant circulars did not provide an exception for this specific case. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the appeal was maintainable, likely by invoking exception Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No.3/2018, which allows appeals even if the tax effect is below the monetary limits under certain circumstances. The Revenue relied on CBDT Circular No.3/2018.

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. 25 of 2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Versus M/S BRILLIANT ESTATE LTD. Appearance: Shri Harsh Parashar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1]. 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.652/IND/2019 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.1,03,63,360/-, which is below the monetary limit as specified in the Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 1 ITA-25-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2978 Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 06-02-2025 10:15:18 Signature Not Verified

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE (GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE dated 15/03/2024. 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-25-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2978 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 →