What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The present case did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in the circular.

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2004-05. The tax effect involved in the appeal was below Rs. 20 Lakhs.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT based on the tax effect and the applicability of the CBDT's monetary limit circular.

ITO vs M/S. Weavtech Engineers, Dadra &… | ITAT Surat 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI C.M.GARG & SHRI O.P.MEENA

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण सूरत �ायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT �ी सी एम गग�, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी ओ पी मीना, लेखा सद� के सम� BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1824/Ahd/2015/SRT िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Weavtech Engineers, Silvassa Ward, S. No.122/1, Vaghdhara Road, Silvassa. Dadra & Nagar Haveli. [PAN: AAAFW 5410E] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) (!"थ /Respondent)

अपीलाथ� की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, C.A ��थ� की ओर से /Revenue by : Mrs. Smitha Nair, Sr. D.R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16-10-2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 16-10-2018 आदेश /ORDER PER C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 28.04.2015 for the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2004-05.

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and perused the material available on record and find that tax effect involved in this appeal is below Rs. 20 Lakhs. The ld. DR also did not dispute this fact. We find that the CBDT vide Circular No.3/2018 Dated 11.07.2018 [F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt)] has revised the monetary limit for filing of appeal before Tribunal fixing the tax effect limit at Rs.20 lacs. The said Circular supersedes the earlier Circular(s) issued on the subject of tax effect and applies to all pending appeal

2 ITA No.1824/Ahd/2015/SRT (A.Y: 2004-05) M/s. Weavtech Engineers retrospectively. The Board has provided exceptions provided under para 10 of the Circular wherein it has been provided that the issues related is to be contested (a) where the Constitution validity of the provision of the Act or (b) Rule is under challenge or (c) where Board`s order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or where Revenue Audit objections has been accepted by the Department or (d) where the addition relates to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts, etc.

We find that the present case does not fall within the exceptions clause and the tax demand is less than Rs.20 lacs. Therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable as per recent Circular (supra) and hence the same is dismissed. However, we may make it clear that the Revenue is at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recalling this order, if it comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the tax effect is more than the monetary limit prescribed under Circular or Revenue`s case falls within the ambit of the exceptions provided in the Circular. 4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 16th October, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- (ओ पी मीना) (सी एम गग�) (O.P.MEENA), (C.M.GARG) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �ाियक सद�/JUDICIAL MEMBER सूरत / Surat; िदनांक Dated : 16th October, 2018 / EDN आदेश की !ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 2. ��थ� / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयु#(अपील) / The concerned CIT(A); 4. The concerned Prl. CIT; 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat; 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.

ITO, VAPI vs. M/S. WEAVTECH ENGINEERS, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments