Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue preferred an appeal against an order by the CIT(A) which had partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The total disputed amount was Rs. 79,92,500/-, but the tax effect was stated to be zero, below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for appeals. Since the Assessing Officer could not convince the Tribunal that the matter fell under any exception to the CBDT circular, the revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
Key Issues
Whether the revenue's appeal is infructuous due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular and whether any exceptions apply.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘G’ BENCH
आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 23.09.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2016- 17/10301020 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income–tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) u/s. 250 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2017-18, wherein learned CIT(A) has partly allowed assessee’s appeal.
Gajadharprasad Nathai Pal 2. At the very outset, we notice that the total amount disputed in this revenue’s appeal is Rs. 79,92,500/-. The tax effect, though shown as Zero in form-36. However, the tax effect shall be less than the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- prescribed by the relevant CBDT circular. Learned DR could not convince the Tribunal as to how the subject matter falls under any exception of relevant CBDT circular letter. In such circumstances, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as infructuous. The revenue is however at liberty to get the matter re-opened if it could convince the Tribunal that the subject matter of this appeal falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in the relevant circular letter issued by CBDT.
Order pronounced in open court on 13.01.2025.