DCIT (TDS),JAIPUR vs. OM METALS INFRA PROJECTS LTD., JAIPUR
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 was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT guidelines.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 53/JP/2017
PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.
This Appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (A)-III,
Jaipur dated 28/10/2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and fact by considering the claims of assessee with respect of non deduction of TDS on transportation expense, however, in fact, assesee is not involved in the business of plying, hiring or leasing good, which are requisite conditions for the application of section 194 (C) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in considering the assessee’s claim in respect of declaration in form 27C which was required to be received at the time of purchase of goods by buyer and copy of declaration should be deposited by responsible person with competent Authority on the specified date as required by Rule 37C and the assessee failed to comply with such legal requirements. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and fact by giving specific direction on account of demand
2 ITA No. 53/JP/2017 M/s Om Metals Infra Projects Ltd., Jaipur.
raised u/s 206C(7) for chagrining interest violates the provision of section 206C(7) of the Act.”
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal is
not maintainable on account of low tax effect. Ld. Counsel for the assessee
submitted that the AO made addition on account of non-collection of TDS. He drew
our attention to the Assessment Order in support of the contention that the total
demand raised in respect of interest and the tax was Rs. 14,63,407/- out of which
Rs. 5,96,258/- was the interest. If the interest is reduced, the tax effect would be
lesser than the prescribed limit of 10 lakhs. Ld. DR has supported the order of the
AO. However, he did not contradict the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the
assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on
record. It is observed that the demand/ tax effect in the Revenue’s appeal in question is below Rs. 10.00 lacs . Under the powers vested by sec. 268A(1) of the I
T Act, CBDT issued CircularNo.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015(F No.
279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt) instructing the authorities below
departmental appeal should not be filed before ITAT where the
demand/tax effect does not exceed Rs.10 lacs. The circular is specifically
mentioned to be applicable for all pending appeals.
3.1 Subject to some exceptions, it is further directed by CBDT that all the
departmental appeals pending before ITAT where the demand/tax effect is less than
10 lacs should be either withdrawn or not pressed by the departmental
representatives.
3 ITA No. 53/JP/2017 M/s Om Metals Infra Projects Ltd., Jaipur.
3.2 The present appeal is not covered by any exceptions mentioned in the said
CBDT circular. Since the tax demand in dispute in this departmental appeal is below
the limit set out by CBDT for the appeal the same is not maintainable in view of fore
going discussion. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable on
account of low tax effect.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order is pronounced in the open court on Wednesday, the 07th day of June 2017.
Sd/- Sd/- ( HkkxpUn ½ ( dqy Hkkjr) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated: 07/06/2017 Pooja/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
The Appellant- Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, (TDS), Jaipur. 2. The Respondent – M/s Om Metals Infra Projects Ltd.,M.I. Road, Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 53/JP/2017)
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत
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 →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026