THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LUCENT CLEANENERGY PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD
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 due to the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which enhanced the mandatory limit for Revenue appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. This circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding share capital received in excess of fair market value. The addition was disallowed under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 for filing appeals.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-
O R D E R
PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT :
The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad dated 23.08.2019 passed for Assessment Year 2013-2014.
The ground taken by the Revenue is as follows:- “The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,03,04,278/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of share capital received in excess of fair market value which is disallowed u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act.”
At the time of hearing before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee; however, since the issue in question is covered by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, this appeal is decided ex-parte qua the assessee, after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and perusing the material available on record.
Having heard the learned Departmental Representative and having perused the material on record, we find that this appeal of the Revenue is ITO Vs. M/s Lucent Cleanenergy Pvt Ltd AY : 2013-14 2 no longer maintainable in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. The mandatory limit for cases in which Revenue can challenge the relief granted by the CIT(A) now stands enhanced to Rs.50 lakhs. This concession granted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is retrospective in effect inasmuch as it applies to all pending appeals as well. In view of the above position, the appeal of the Revenue is no longer maintainable and is dismissed as such.
It is, however, made clear that on re-verification at the end of the Assessing Officer if it comes out that the tax effect of more than Rs.50 lakhs is being involved in the appeal or the appeal falls within the exemption clause of the Circular, then the Revenue will be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application to recall the Tribunal order. The application should be filed within the time limit prescribed in the Act.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th March, 2022 at Ahmedabad. (MADHUMITA ROY) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad, Dated 28 /03/2022 *Bt
More judgments on Section 56(2)(viib)
- M/S Namdev Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-1, JaipurITA 1255/JPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Payswiff Technologies Private Limited… vs DCIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 131/HYD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Radison Estates Private Limited, Bangalore vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 519/BANG/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Income Tax Officer - 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs Coolberg Beverages Pvt Ltd, MumbaiITA 4286/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Medwell Ventures Private Limited, Delhi vs The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1775/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026