D.C.I.T, CIRCLE - II, BATHINDA vs. M/S SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUKATSAR
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 appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018. The Ld. DR also agreed with this position.
What were the facts?
The Revenue Department filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A). The tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 20 lacs.
What were the issues?
Maintainability of the appeal by the Revenue Department due to low tax effect as per CBDT instructions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA & SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.490(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2014-15
Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s Setia Industries Ltd., Tax, Bathinda Vill. Rupana, Malout Road, Muktsar PAN:AACCS 7233A (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR) Respondent by: None Date of hearing: 9.10.2018 Date of pronouncement: 9.10.2018 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY The instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue Department, on feeling aggrieved against the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-Bathinda, u/s 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’).
At the time of hearing, it is seen that the tax effect involved in this appeal of the Revenue Department is less than Rs.20 lacs, hence, the present appeal filed by the Revenue Department is liable to be dismissed, as the same is not maintainable, in view of the latest CBDT Instruction No.03 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018.
ITA No.490(Asr)/2017(A.Y.2014-15) 2 DCIT v. Setia Industries Ltd. Muktsar
The Ld. DR also agreed that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.20 lacs. Hence, as per CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018, dated 11th July, 2018, which is binding on the Department, the Department is precluded from filing the present appeal, as this Instruction is applicable retrospectively. Therefore, the aforesaid appeal can not survive any longer. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department is dismissed as not maintainable.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 9.10.2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:09.10.2018 /PK/ Ps. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) M/s Setia Industries Ltd., Vill. Rupana, Malout Road, Muktsar (2) The Dy. CIT, Bathinda (3) The CIT(A)- Bathinda (4) The CIT concerned (5) The SR DR, I.T.A.T., Amritsar
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026