What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which precludes the Revenue from filing appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50,00,000/-.

The Revenue Department filed appeals before the ITAT against orders passed by the CIT(A). The tax effect in these appeals was individually less than Rs. 50 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether appeals filed by the Revenue Department are maintainable before the ITAT when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

ITO vs M/S. Ram Saran Dass, Amritsar | s.250(6) | ITAT Amritsar 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SH. B.R. BASKARAN & SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 23.08.2019Pronounced: 23.08.2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.798 & 799/Asr/2017 Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2010-11

Dy. CIT, Vs. Sh. Dharam Pal Goyal Circle-I, Bathinda C/o M/s. DMR Builders Pvt. Ltd. Bathinda [PAN:ADUPG 2351D] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.281 & 113/Asr/2014 Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2003-04

Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Ram Saran Dass Kishori Ward-1(2), Amritsar Lal Charitable Trust 48, Gandhi Bazar, Amritsar [PAN:AAATR 0783P] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.234/Asr/2019 Assessment Year:2015-16

Income Tax Officer Vs. Sh. Mohinder Singh Ward-4(3), Jalandhar L/H of Sh. Kamaldeep Singh H. No.34, H.B. No.228, Kukar Pind, Jalandhar [PAN:CSYPS 8348R] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.562/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15

Income Tax Officer Vs. The Ganpati Cement Sicop Ward-6(1), Pathankot Industrial Area, Kathua J&K H.O. Pathankot. [PAN:AAFFG 4538G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA No.24/Asr/2019 Assessment Year:2012-13

Asst.CIT Vs. The Rasulpur Co-op. Circle Moga, Moga Agriculture Service Society Ltd. VPO Rasulpur Tehsil Jagraon Distt. Ludhiana [PAN:AAAAT 4717A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA Nos.68 & 214/Asr/2019 Assessment Year:2011-12

Income Tax Officer Vs. Sh. Gurcharan Singh Ward-1(5), Mansa S/o Sh. Hakam Singh Village-Pilshian, Distt. Mansa [PAN:BAFPS 9180K] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.171/Asr/2019 Assessment Year:2012-13

Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s Indian Tractor Co. Ward-1(1), Bathinda ITI Chowk, Mansa Road Bathinda [PAN:AACF1 0044E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR) Respondent by: None Date of hearing: 23.08.2019 Date of pronouncement: 23.08.2019 ORDER PER BENCH:

The Revenue Department has preferred the captioned appeals against the orders impugned herein passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the

captioned matter u/s 250(6) of the Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’).

At the outset it is observed that tax effect involved in the appeals under consideration individually is not more than 50 lacs, hence the instant appeals are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, in view of the latest CBDT Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019 whereby the Revenue Department is precluded from filing the appeals(s) before appellate tribunal against the order (s) of CIT(A), in which the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50,00,000/- as specified in the Circular and the CBDT Clarification dated 20th August 2019 whereby it is clarified that revised monetary limits so mentioned in the circular 17/2019 is applicable to all pending SLPs/Appeals/Cross Objections/References.

However the liberty is granted to the Revenue Department to seek recall of the order, in case it realize that the captioned appeal falls within the exception as prescribed in Circular No.03/2018 (supra) and/or having involved the tax effect more than Rs. 50 lacs.

In the result, the appeals under consideration filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/08/2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23/08/2018 /PK/ Ps.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. M/S. RAM SARAN DASS, AMRITSAR.

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments