Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Vijay Kumar Surana

PDF · subscribers
ITA/99/2022HC 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 CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024, which was later amended by Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024, supersedes the earlier circulars dated 11/07/2018 and 08/08/2019. Crucially, the latest circulars do not provide for an exception clause (like 10(C)) that would allow filing an appeal notwithstanding the tax effect being below the specified monetary limits. Since the tax effect of Rs.1.40 Crore was below the stipulated limits and no exception applied under the prevailing circulars, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was granted liberty to file an application if the cause of action survives as per law.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 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 ITA No.644/IND/2019 dated 30.09.2021. The core issue revolved around the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court, specifically concerning the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circulars. The tax effect involved in the case was Rs.1.40 Crore, which was below the limits stipulated in Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 and Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15/03/2024. The appeal was filed under exception Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11/07/2018.

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, given that the tax effect of Rs.1.40 Crore is below the monetary limits specified in subsequent circulars. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee (Revenue in this appeal) argued that the appeal should be entertained under exception Clause 10(C) of CBDT Circular No.3/2018. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee regarding the interpretation of the circulars or the tax effect. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue (appellant) contended that the appeal is maintainable, likely relying on the exception clause. The judgment does not explicitly detail the Revenue's arguments beyond the fact that they filed the appeal. The judgment focuses on the applicability of the CBDT circulars.

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. 99 of 2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus VIJAY KUMAR SURANA 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 ITA No.644/IND/2019 dated 30.09.2021. 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.1.40 Crore, 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-99-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2961 Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 06-02-2025 10:15:18 Signature Not Verified

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE (GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE 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-99-2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2961 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 →