ITYO, WARD-1(4), NOIDA vs. GYANI, G B NAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The Revenue was directed to withdraw or not press such appeals.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed appeals before the ITAT. The tax effect in these appeals was found to be less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- set by CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018.
What were the issues?
Whether appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit are maintainable before the ITAT, considering CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI N. K. SAINI & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLEShri Shri Joseph Nathan
ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
The present appeals filed by the Revenue in respect of different assessees are directed against the orders passed by the CIT(A) in relation to the different assessment years.
The Ld. DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. The assessees remained unrepresented when the matters were called out.
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 appeals is less than Rs.20,00,000/-, the extant appeals are not maintainable. The Ld. DR, although supported the orders of the Assessing Officer, but could not controvert the fact that tax effect involved in these appeals is less than Rs.20,00,000/-.
Going by the prescription of the above stated Circular, it is observed 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We are, therefore, of the view that the Revenue should have either not filed the instant appeals before the Tribunal or withdrawn the same as the tax effect in these appeals is admittedly less than the prescribed limit, i.e., Rs. 20,00,000/- for not filing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismissed the instant appeals without going into merits of the cases.
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 any of the above appeals is covered by the amended para of the Circular. Under these circumstances, we dismiss all 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 appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed.
In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th September, 2018
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 →- Sri Hardik Gowda vs. Sri Jayaram PKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
- Shiv Ram vs. State Of Hp And OrsHimachal Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Ampl Resources PVT. LTD., Through Sri Om Prakash Pareek, Authorised Signatory vs. The State Of JharkhandJharkhand · 3 Nov 2026
- Saleem vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 3 Nov 2026
- Ms R Ess Iron And Steel PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And OrsGauhati · 3 Nov 2026