ACIT, CIR.-3(1), DHULE vs. SHRI MANOHAR BHIKCHAND AGRAWAL, DHULE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 665/PUN/2010Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 November 20184 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular with retrospective effect mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals where the tax effect is below the prescribed limit. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. During the hearing, it was submitted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018 for filing appeals. The Revenue's counsel could not controvert this fact.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the revised monetary limits for appeals to the Tribunal as per CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Appellant: Shri Pankag Garg
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Ganoo

PER R.S.SYAL, VP :

The present appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Nashik on 24-02-2010 in relation to the Block Period 1988-89 to 1998-99.

2.

During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that pursuant to the mandate of section 268A, the CBDT has issued

2 ITA No.665/PUN/2010 Shri Manohar Bhikchand Agrawal

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. He

further submitted 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/-. In

fact, the ld. DR has himself filed a computation showing tax

effect of Rs.6,60,000/- in this appeal, which is below the

prescribed limit.

3.

We have heard the parties and perused the relevant

material on record. 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 appeal before

the Tribunal or withdrawn the same as the tax effect in this

3 ITA No.665/PUN/2010 Shri Manohar Bhikchand Agrawal

appeal is admittedly less than the stipulated amount.

Accordingly, we dismiss the instant appeal without going into

merits of the case.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20th November, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 20th November, 2018 सतीश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / 3. The CIT (Appeals)-1, Nashik आयकर आयु� / The CIT-1, Nashik 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “ए” 5. / DR ‘A’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. // True copy // 6.

आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

ITA No.665/PUN/2010 Shri Manohar Bhikchand Agrawal

Date 1. Draft dictated on 20-11-18 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 20-11-18 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order.

*

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →