DCIT, CIRCLE- 6(2), NEW DELHI vs. CRS INFRA PROJECTS LTD., NEW DELHI
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 found merit in the assessee's contention regarding pecuniary limits as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The tax effect was below the prescribed limit, and no exceptions applied.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed an order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2009-10. The appeal involved disallowance of building material expenses and addition for expenses not recorded in the books. The assessee's counsel argued the appeal was not maintainable due to pecuniary limits.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT based on the pecuniary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No.17/2019.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Not Applicable
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
This appeal by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi dated 16.03.2018.
The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. “Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in ignoring the fact that the disallowance of building material expenses amounting to Rs.49,56,362/- was made because supporting bills and evidences were not filed by the assessee.
2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is legally justified in ignoring the fact that the addition of Rs.85,07,003/- was made for expenses in support of which bills/invoices were available but the same were not recorded in the books of the assessee company.”
2. The Revenue has filed an application seeking adjournment on the ground that the Ld.CIT DR is on leave. However, during the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the present appeal is not maintainable on account of pecuniary limits as prescribed by CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019.
Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and perused the material on record, we find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as the tax effect is lower than Rs.50 Lakhs as prescribed by CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. There is nothing on record suggesting that the matter falls under any of the exception as prescribed under the aforesaid Circular. We, therefore, reject the application seeking adjournment and dismiss the appeal being not maintainable in view of the CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. However, the Revenue would be at liberty to approach the Tribunal by way of miscellaneous application, if it is found that the tax effect is higher than the prescribed limit or otherwise the matter falls under any of the exception clauses.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court during the course of hearing on 02nd March 2021.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
