The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 vs. Shri Shankarlal Mukati

ITA/70/2022HC 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Court noted that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, issued on 15/03/2024 and later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 on 17/09/2024, superseded the earlier circulars of 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. The subsequent circulars did not contain the exception clause (Clause 10(C)) that allowed filing appeals notwithstanding the tax effect being below the monetary limits. Therefore, based on the prevailing circulars at the time of the decision, the appeal, with a tax effect of Rs. 6,30,000, did not meet the criteria for entertainability. The Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. However, it explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal would remain open, and the appellant (Revenue) would be at liberty to file an application if the cause of action survived as per law.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (the Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore, in ITA No. 433/IND/2018 dated 28/06/2021. The sole issue in dispute was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the High Court under Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11/07/2018. The tax effect involved in the case was Rs. 6,30,000, which was below the monetary limits specified in subsequent CBDT Circulars No. 17/2019 and 5/2024. The respondent, Shri Shankarlal Mukati, was represented by no one.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is entertainable before the High Court under Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, despite the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondent assessee. The appeal was filed by the Revenue, and the respondent was not represented. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that their appeal was maintainable before the High Court under Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which provides for exceptions to the monetary limits for filing appeals. They relied on the existence of this exception clause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

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. 70 of 2022 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Versus SHRI SHANKARLAL MUKATI 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.433/IND/2018 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.6,30,000/-, 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-70-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3566 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-70-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3566 Signed by: HEMANT SARAF Signing time: 20-02-2025 14:10:59 Signature Not Verified

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →