Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Bhopal vs. M/S Dbl Jaora Sailana Tollways Limited

PDF · subscribers
ITA/25/2024HC Madhya Pradesh24 January 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI2 pages
For Petitioner: Siddharth Sharma
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 of Rs. 4,19,027/- was below the monetary limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. Furthermore, the Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, as amended by Circular No. 9/2024, superseded earlier circulars and did not provide an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would allow filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. 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-1, Bhopal (the appellant/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 filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The core issue revolved around the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court, specifically whether it qualified for an exception under Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The tax effect involved in the case was Rs. 4,19,027/-, which was below the monetary limits prescribed by subsequent CBDT Circulars No. 17/2019 and 5/2024.

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, given that the tax effect of Rs. 4,19,027/- is below the monetary limits specified in subsequent CBDT Circulars. Assessee's Contentions: The respondent (M/s DBL Jaora Sailana Tollways Limited) did not record any specific contentions in the judgment. However, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court, implying the Court found the assessee's position regarding maintainability to be valid. Revenue's Contentions: The appellant (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhopal) contended that the appeal should be entertained, likely arguing for the applicability of an exception to the monetary limits. The judgment notes that the tax effect was below the specified limits, and the subsequent circulars superseded earlier ones.

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 JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA ON THE 24th OF JANUARY, 2025 INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 25 of 2024 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BHOPAL Versus M/S DBL JAORA SAILANA TOLLWAYS LIMITED Appearance: Shri Siddharth Sharma - learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. Shri Sumit Nema - learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ayush Gupta - Advocate 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. 147/IND/2020 dated 31/07/2023. 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.4,19,027/-, 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. On perusal of the Circular dated 15/03/2024, which was later on, 1 ITA-25-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3845 Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 1/27/2025 6:10:13 PM Signature Not Verified

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE (ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024 issued by CBDT supercedes 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 dismised. However, the appellant would be at liberty to file application, in case cause of action survives as per law. skt

2 ITA-25-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3845 Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 1/27/2025 6:10:13 PM 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 →