The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 vs. Shri Santosh Agrawal

PDF · subscribers
ITA/30/2022HC 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 is not maintainable. The Court observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated September 17, 2024, supersedes the earlier circulars dated July 11, 2018, and August 8, 2019. The subsequent circulars do not provide for an exception clause similar to 10(C) that would allow filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circulars at the time of the decision, the appeal did not meet the criteria for maintainability. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives 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, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore, dated June 28, 2021. The appeal was filed in ITA No. 650/IND/2019. The sole issue in dispute was whether the Revenue's appeal before the High Court was maintainable under Exception Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The tax effect involved was Rs. 2,67,000, which was below the monetary limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. The respondent, Shri Santosh Agrawal, was not represented before the High Court.

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, given that the tax effect of Rs. 2,67,000 is below the monetary limits specified in subsequent circulars. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee, Shri Santosh Agrawal, as he was not represented. However, the appeal itself is based on the Revenue's grievance regarding the maintainability of their appeal before the High Court. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that their appeal was maintainable under Exception Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, despite the tax effect being below the stipulated monetary limits. 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. 30 of 2022 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Versus SHRI SANTOSH AGRAWAL 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 ITA No.650/IND/2019 dated 28/06/2021. 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.2,67,000/-, 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-30-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3555 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.

2 ITA-30-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3555 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 →