ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI vs. NEELAMANIKANDAN, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1988/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 November 2019AY 2012-132 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 CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which instructs to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below ₹50 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. The tax effect in the case was less than ₹50 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal, with a tax effect below the monetary limit specified by CBDT circular, should be withdrawn and dismissed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Ms. S. Sriniranjani, Advocate
Hearing: 27.11.2019Pronounced: 29.11.2019

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Chennai, dated 26.03.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13.

2.

On hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative, we find that the tax effect in this case is less than `50 lakhs. The CBDT in its Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 increased the monetary limit for filing

2 appeal before this Tribunal and instructed its officers to withdraw all the appeals pending before the ITAT where the tax effect is less than `50 lakhs. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that this Circular of CBDT is binding on the officers of the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed further in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 3.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →