DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JINDAL SAW LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers

ITA 3017/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2025AY 2008-09Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal suffers from a low tax effect, being below the monetary limit fixed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Tribunal noted that the SR.DR stated she was not authorized to argue the matter and that the appeal arises from a search action. However, without specific submissions from the authorized representative of the Revenue, and considering the low tax effect, the Tribunal found the appeal liable to be dismissed. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal if the issues involved fall under any of the exceptions specified in para 3.1 and 3.2 of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the case or whether the search action exception applied.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, has filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-25, dated 14.01.2025, for the assessment year 2013-14. The tax effect involved in this appeal is Rs. 7,47,935. The Tribunal noted that this amount is below the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department as fixed by the CBDT. A query was made to the Senior Departmental Representative (SR.DR) regarding any exceptions applicable. The SR.DR stated that the appeal arises from a search action but indicated she was not authorized to argue the matter, suggesting the CIT(DR) should make submissions on behalf of the Department.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT, and if any exceptions apply to this rule? Assessee's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee. The assessee is represented by Ms. Sudha Gupta, SR.DR, who stated she was not authorized to argue the matter and that the appeal arises from a search action. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, through the SR.DR, indicated that the appeal arises from a search action, implying it might fall under an exception to the monetary limit rule. However, the SR.DR stated she was not authorized to argue the matter and that the CIT(DR) should make submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly discussed or named in the judgment, other than reference to CBDT Circulars.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

Hearing: 29/07/2025

ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-25 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)'), dated 14.01.2025, for assessment year 2013-14.

A perusal of Form No. 36 shows that the tax effect involved in appeal is Rs.7,47,935/-i.e. far below the monetary limit fixed by the CBDT for filing of appeal by the Department before the Tribunal. A specific query was made to the ld. DR as to whether the issue raised in appeal falls under any of the exceptions. The ld. DR stated that this appeal arises from search action, hence, she is not (AY 2013-14) authorized to argue the matter and only the CIT(DR) can make submissions on behalf of the Department.

I have heard the submissions made by ld. DR. Since this appeal suffers from low tax effect in light of the CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, hence, is liable to be dismissed.

Liberty is granted to the Revenue for revival of appeal, if the issue(s) involved in instant appeal fall under any of the exceptions specified in para 3.1 and 3.2 of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →