What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Income Tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions were found, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Revenue filed multiple appeals before the ITAT. The Department's counsel brought to the Tribunal's attention CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which stipulated that appeals would not be preferred if the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lakhs.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed based on the CBDT's monetary limit for filing appeals, as the tax effect was below the stipulated threshold.

DCIT vs Smt. Reena Goel, New Delhi | ITAT Delhi 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Respondent: Shri Lalit, CA Room No. 354, Shri Lalit, CA New Delhi, Shri Lalit, CA New Delhi, Shri Lalit

Hearing: 23/08/2018Pronounced: 10/09/2018

PER BENCH:

1. 1. These appeals by the Revenue arise out of the orders passed by the CIT(A) in relation to the captioned assessment years.

2. At the outset of the hearing itself, the ld. DR brought to our attention that CBDT vide Circular No.03/2018 dated 11TH July 2018 has decided that the revenue would not prefer an appeal before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs. He further referred to another Circular dated 20.08.2018 issued by CBDT and submitted that the cases which are falling into exception cannot be dismissed, even if tax effect is less than Rs. 20 lakhs. He, therefore, submitted that he needs to verify whether any such facts are existing in the above listed cases. Therefore, he pleaded that the appeals of the revenue be decided as per the instruction of the CBDT.

3. Ld AR also reiterated same facts.

4. We have heard both the sides on the issue and perused the material. We find that the CBDT vide circular dated 11th July 2018 has revised the monetary limit for filing the appeal by the department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant para of the aforesaid circular is reproduced as under :- “3. Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder :- 5

Sl.No. Appeals in Income-tax Monetary Limit(in matters Rs.) 1. Before Appellate Tribunal 20,00,000 2. Before High Court 50,00,000 3. Before Supreme Court 1,00,00,000

It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.”

We have consciously reviewed each of the above appeals, however, could not find any such issues involved in these appeals which are covered by exception to the tax effect circular as mentioned in amended Para No. 10 of that Circular. Instantaneously, ld DR also could not show any such instance in these appeals.

We find that the tax effect involves in the appeal of the Revenue is below Rs.20 lakhs. There is no dispute that the Board’s instructions or directions issued to the Income-tax authorities are binding on those authorities, therefore, the Department should have withdrawn/not pressed the present appeal in view of the aforesaid instruction since the tax effect in the instant appeal is less than the amount of Rs.20 lakhs. 5. In view of the above, Circular No.3/2018 dated 10.07.2018 will apply to all pending appeals. Therefore the precedent, it is held that the appeal is not maintainable in the instant case as the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs. Accordingly, it is held that appeals filed by the revenue are not maintainable. We also hastened to add that certain times instances stated in para No. 10 of the circular are not discernable from the assessment and appellate orders, therefore, in such cases, we also give liberty to revenue that if such instances comes to their notice than he may file miscellaneous application with such evidences.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. REENA GOEL, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments