DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADITYA LANDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI
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 less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The assessee argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, below the prescribed monetary limit.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit set by CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.D. AGARWAL & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY
ORDER
PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM
The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 22.2.2016 in Appeal No.193/14-15 passed by the Learned 2 Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-29, New Delhi {“CIT(A)”} in relation to Assessment Year 2012-13.
At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable as the tax effect involved in this case is less than Rs.20 lacs. 3. We have heard the parties. It is found that pursuant to the mandate of section 268A, the CBDT has issued Circular No. 03 of 2018, dated 11th July, 2018 with retrospective effect, revising the monetary limit to Rs.20,00,000/- for not filing appeals before the Tribunal. It is further found that as the tax effect involved in the instant appeal is less than Rs.20,00,000/-, the extant appeal is not maintainable. The ld. D.R., although supported the order of the Assessing Officer, but could not controvert the fact that tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.20,00,000/-. 4. Going by the prescription of the aforenoted Circular, it is palpable that the Instruction is applicable to the pending appeals also with retrospective effect and there is a clear-cut direction to the Department to withdraw or not press such appeals filed before the ITAT, wherein tax effect is less than Rs.20,00,000/-. We are, therefore, of the view that the Revenue should have either not filed the instant appeals before the Tribunal or withdrawn the same as the tax effect in this case 3 is admittedly less than the prescribed limit, i.e., Rs. 20,00,000/- for not filing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the instant appeal without going into merits of the case. 5. The ld. DR has brought to our notice a letter dated 20.08.2018 of the Director (ITJ), CBDT, New Delhi addressed to All the Principal CCITs in which para no. 10 of the earlier Circular dated 11.7.2018, enumerating certain instances in which the appeals should be contested notwithstanding the low tax effect, has been revised. He, however, could not place any material on record to demonstrate that the above appeal is covered by the amended para of the Circular. Under these circumstances, we dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue and give liberty to the Department to file Miscellaneous Applications, if it is found that either the tax effect is more than the prescribed limit of Rs.20,00,000/- or the appeals gets covered in the revised para 10 of the letter dated 20.08.2018. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 1st November, 2018. Sd/- sd/- (G.D. AGARWAL) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 1ST November, 2018 VJ
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 →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026