ITO 22(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI vs. MOHAN VELJI PATEL, MUMBAI
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 revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the quantum of penalty in dispute was below the prescribed threshold limit of Rs. 50 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
What were the facts?
The revenue challenged a penalty of Rs. 31.98 Lacs deleted by the first appellate authority. The penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2002-03.
What were the issues?
Whether the revenue's appeal is maintainable when the penalty amount is below the monetary threshold specified in CBDT circulars regarding low tax effect.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
By way of captioned appeal, the revenue challenges the order of Ld. first appellate authority in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.31.98 Lacs. The impugned penalty was levied by Ld. Assessing Officer vide order dated 30/03/2012.
The Ld. Counsel for assessee, at the outset, submitted that quantum of penalty under dispute is below prescribed threshold M/s. Mohan Velji Patel Assessment Year: 2002-03 limit of Rs.50 Lacs and therefore, the revenue’s appeal is not maintainable in terms of latest low tax effect CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 [F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-TTJ(Pt.). The Ld. DR could not point out any exception to controvert the plea raised by Ld. AR.
After going through material on record, we find that the quantum of penalty under dispute is below threshold monetary limit of Rs.50 Lacs and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable in terms of recently issued low tax effect Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 [F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-TTJ(Pt.) issued by CBDT. This recent circular further enhances the monetary limit fixed in earlier Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11/07/2018 issued by CBDT as amended on 20/08/2018. In view of the same, the appeal is not maintainable.
At the same time, a liberty is given to revenue to seek recall of the appeal, if at a later stage, it is found that the matter is covered by any exceptions provided in any of the circular or in case the tax effect in the appeal exceeds the prescribed monetary limit.
Order pronounced on 11th January, 2021.
Sd/- Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 11/01/2021 Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese
M/s. Mohan Velji Patel Assessment Year: 2002-03
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026