ACIT-13(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VAIKUNTH MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, finding that its filing was not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) which arose from an assessment order under Section 144 r.w.s. 147. The tax effect in dispute was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals set by a CBDT circular.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue was in compliance with the revised monetary limits for appeals stipulated by the CBDT circular.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, L Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh
The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08 is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-21, Mumbai dated 05.06.2017 which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.02.2015.
The CBDT, vide Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, has revised the monetary limit for filing of appeals by the Department before the Tribunal with retrospective effect. The tax effect in dispute in the captioned appeal is stated to be below the monetary limit of `20 lakhs specified in the CBDT Circular dated 11.07.2018 (supra).
In this background, the learned D.R. appearing for the Revenue was required to state his position; he has not referred to any material which Vaikunth Mecial Diagnostic Centre P. Ltd. would show that the captioned appeal is protected by any of the exceptions provided in para 10 of the CBDT circular (supra).
Without going into the merit of the issue raised, the captioned appeal is deemed to be withdrawn/not pressed as it’s filing is not in consonance with the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018 (supra). Before parting we may clarify that if on a later date, the Revenue finds that filing of the appeal is protected by the exceptions provided in para 10 of the CBDT circular (supra), it shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order and reinstitution of the appeal for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal shall consider such application, if any, as per the extant law.
In conclusion, by applying the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018 (supra), the captioned appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn/ not pressed.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026