DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, FARIDABAD vs. BHOLEJI INFRATRADE PVT. LTD., FARIDABAD
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made under Section 68. The assessee argued that the tax involved was below the monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue did not controvert this submission.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT given the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for appeals with low tax effect.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
ORDER
PER MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Gurgaon relating to Assessment Year 2008-09.
Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeals: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer.
DCIT vs. Bholeji Infratrade Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2008-09 2 (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A), was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made on protective basis on account of bogus share capital / share premium received during the year by the assessee.] (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any ground of appeal at the time of hearing appeal.”
Before us, at the outset, Ld. A.R. submitted that in the impugned appeal of Revenue, the tax involved is less than the monetary limit of Rs.50 lakh and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. Learned CIT DR did not controvert the submissions made by Ld. A.R.
We have heard the both the parties and perused the material on record. On perusing the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, we find that Revenue is aggrieved by the order of Learned CIT(A) in respect of the relief given by him. We find that CBDT vide Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 had increased the limit for filing appeal before ITAT at Rs. 20 lakhs. The limit for filing appeals before ITAT and other authorities were enhanced by CBDT vide Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. As per the aforesaid CBDT Circular dated 08.08.2019, no Department appeals are to be filed against relief given by the Learned CIT(A) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal unless the tax effect, excluding interest, exceeds Rs.50 lakhs. We find that in the present case, the tax effect involved is less than Rs.50 lakhs. In the absence of any material placed on record by the Revenue to DCIT vs. Bholeji Infratrade Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2008-09 3 demonstrate that the issue in the present appeal is covered by exceptions provided in para 10 of the aforesaid CBDT Circular of 11.07.2018, we are of the view that the monetary limit prescribed by the instructions of the CDBT Circular dated 08.08.2019 would be applicable to the present appeal of the Department. We therefore hold the present appeal of Revenue to be not maintainable on account of low tax effect. However, in case there is any error in the computation of the tax effect involved or if for any reason, the aforesaid CBDT Circular is not applicable, it would be open to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal. Thus the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026