ITO 33 (3)(3), MUMBAI vs. SADASHIV K. SHETTY HUF, MUMBAI

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 01.04.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2005-06.

At the outset, it is brought to the notice of the Bench by the Ld A.R. that the CBDT recently has amended the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 vide Circular No. 17/2019, F.No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) dated 08.08.2019 increasing the limit for filing of appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal i.e. ₹ 50 lacs in each of the case. We noted that earlier Circular No. 3 of 2018 was made applicable to pending appeals also and this clause of the circular remains unchanged even after the

When this was confronted to the learned Departmental Representative, he could not point out that this appeal falls under any of the exception as provided in Circular No. 17 of 2019. Admittedly, the tax effect in this appeal of Revenue is much below the prescribed limit of ₹ 50 lacs as per CBDT circular No. 17 of 2019. In view of the above, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn in view of Circular No. 17 of 2019.

Now, before us, the learned CIT Departmental Representative only requested that he wants to verify whether this appeal falls under any of the explanation provided in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Here, we are giving liberty to Revenue that in case, after passing of the order it comes to the notice of the Revenue that this appeal does not fall under any explanation of the CBDT by 3/18, the AO can move for recalling of the order within the prescribed time limit under section 254 of the Act. Hence, this appeal is dismissed as low tax effect covered by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.