ITO, DELHI vs. SMT.SATINDER KOCHAR, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 406/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 October 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)2 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 noted that the tax effect of the appeal was less than Rs. 60 lacs. Therefore, in light of CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, the appeal was not admissible.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. The assessee was not represented before the tribunal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the admissibility of the revenue's appeal based on the tax effect and the prevailing CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. M. BALAGANESH & SH. SUDHIR KUMAR

For Appellant: Ms. Jaya Choudhary, CIT DR
Hearing: 17/10/2024Pronounced: 28/10/2024

ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:

The above captioned appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], vide order dated 05.10.2023 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 arises out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 28.12.2018 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961[hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’].

2.

We have heard the Ld. DR and none represented for the assessee.

3.

The grievance of the revenue shows that the tax effect would be less than Rs.60 lacs and, therefore, this appeal is not admissible in the light of the CBDT Circular No.09 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.10.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →