ITO WD 1(1), KALYAN vs. ARVIND DEVIDAS GULVI, BHIWANDI

Arvind Devidas Gulvi Assessment Year-2011-12 2. The learned Representative for assessee, at the outset, drew our attention to the fact that the tax effect of the quantum additions being contested by the revenue is below the threshold monetary limit of Rs.50 Lacs as prescribed by Central Board of Direct Taxes in its recently issued Circular No.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 [F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-TTJ(Pt.) Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue] and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. 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. The Ld. Departmental Representative is unable to point out any exceptions in the appeal as provided in para-10 of Circular no. 3 of 2018 dated 11/07/2018. The perusal of tax effect computations as placed before us, prima facie, establish that the tax effect of quantum addition being contested by the revenue is below Rs.50 Lacs.

We have gone through the circular and find that the tax effect in the appeal is below prescribed limit of Rs.50 Lacs and the assessee stood benefitted by the above circular issued by CBDT wherein the minimum monetary limit for filing the appeals before various appellate authorities have been fixed as under: - S. No. Appeals/ SLPs in Income-tax Monetary Limit (Rs.) matters 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 50.00,000 2 Before High Court 1,00.00,000 3 Before Supreme Court 2,00.00,000 Arvind Devidas Gulvi Assessment Year-2011-12 The aforesaid limits, as per para 13 of the Circular no. 3 of 2018 dated 11/07/2018, applies to the above appeal. In view of the admitted position, we dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.

At the same time, a liberty is granted 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 the aforesaid circular or in case the tax effect of the additions in the appeal as agitated by revenue exceeds the prescribed monetary limit.

Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.