ITO, SAHARANPUR vs. SH. ISHTIYAQ AHMED, SAHARANPUR
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 departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, which was the enhanced monetary limit for filing departmental appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
What were the issues?
Whether the departmental appeal is maintainable before the ITAT when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit set by CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “C” : DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR
This appeal by Revenue has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar, Dated 05.03.2013, for the A.Y. 2009-2010.
2 ITA.No.3568/Del./2013 Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Saharanpur. 2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties through video conferencing and perused the material on record.
Admittedly, the tax effect in the Departmental Appeal is less than Rs.50 lakhs. Vide Circular No.3/2018 Dated 11th July, 2018 issued by CBDT under section 268A of the I.T. Act, it has been directed that the Department shall not file appeal before the Tribunal in case where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs.20 lakhs. It is also directed that this instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in the Tribunal. Pending appeals below the specified tax limit may be withdrawn/not pressed by the Department. The CBDT Vide Circular No.17/2019 Dated 08.08.2019 amended the earlier Circular No.3/2018 (supra) whereby it has been directed that monetary limit for filing the Departmental appeal in Income Tax Cases may be enhanced further through this amendment in para-3 of the Circular mentioned above and accordingly, the monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal have 3 ITA.No.3568/Del./2013 Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Saharanpur. been enhanced to Rs.50 lakhs. Since Circular No.17/2019 Dated 08.08.2019 have been issued to amend its earlier Circular No.3/2018 (supra), therefore, all the conditions of earlier Circular No.3/2018 shall apply accordingly.
The Ld. D.R. in view of the above Board’s Circulars did not press the Departmental Appeal. The case of the Department would not fall in the exceptions provided in the above Board Circulars. In the result, the Departmental appeal is not maintainable as the appeal is filed against the Board instructions referred to above and therefore, the appeal of the Department is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Department dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed.
More judgments on Section 268A
- Income Tax Officer, Ajmer vs Hemant Kumar Sharma, AjmerITA 1506/JPR/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Income Tax Officer, Indore vs Aashta Doshi, IndoreITA 789/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs Khushal Madhavlal Darji, AhmedabadITA 82/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana vs Hemantkumar Faljibhai Chaudhary, MehsanaITA 475/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Dy. CIT-4(1), Indore vs Kiran Bajpai, IndoreITA 426/IND/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026