Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal under Section 253(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging an order of the CIT(A) which arose from an assessment made under Section 143(3). During the hearing, the Ld. DR submitted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as 'withdrawn' in limine due to the low tax effect (₹52,23,495/-) falling below the ₹60 Lakh monetary limit set by CBDT Circular 09/2024 and previous circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal at a subsequent stage in accordance with law if stipulated reasons arose.
Key Issues
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal when the tax effect is below the monetary threshold prescribed by CBDT circulars.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 253(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Rule 34 of ITAT Rules
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, GOA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
Appearances Assessee by: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 09/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09/07/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; Against the Order dt. 29/08/2019 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-1, Panaji, Goa [for short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] which in turn ascended out of order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is challenged by the Revenue u/s 253(2) of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4 ITO Vs Late Geffrey Stephen D’Souza, L/H Richa Rosy D’Souza AY: 2011-12 2. During the course of hearing, the Ld. DR Uniyal referring to impugned addition under dispute submitted that, the tax effect of the present Revenue’s appeal falls below monetary tax limit extended by the Central Board of Direct Taxes [for short ‘CBDT/Board’] vide Circular 09/2024 dt. 17/09/2024 r.w.c. 17/2019 & r.w.c. 3/2018. It was further submitted that as per Circular No 3/2018, F. No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt) dt 11/07/2018, there was clear direction to the Revenue that, no appeal shall be filed by the Revenue in respect of any assessment year or years where the tax effect is less than monetary limit specified in Para 3 of the aforestated circular. The limit of tax effect set in Para 3 for filing an appeal before Tribunal by the Revenue was set initially to ₹20Lakhs in the year 2018, which subsequently was modified & extended by Board vide Circular No 17/2019 dt. 08/08/2019 to Rs ₹50Lakhs ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 ITO Vs Late Geffrey Stephen D’Souza, L/H Richa Rosy D’Souza AY: 2011-12 and further extended by circular 09/2024 dt. 17/09/2024 to ₹60Lakhs. The Para 13 of circular 3/2018 and likewise Para 5 of Circular 09/2024 dt. 24/09/2024 further clearly stipulated that, instruction/limit contained therein to be applied retrospectively to all pending appeals and fresh appeals to be filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court/High Courts/Tribunals. Thus directing thereby that all pending appeals below the specified monetary tax limits may be withdrawn / not pressed.
In view therefore, the Revenue vide letter dt. 26/06/2025 submitted an authorisation cum report for withdrawal of present appeal confirming that, the tax effect in Revenue’s present appeal is below monetary limit of ₹60 Lakhs. While requesting for withdrawal a prayer was also made for grant of liberty to revive the appeal at any subsequent stage for such ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4 ITO Vs Late Geffrey Stephen D’Souza, L/H Richa Rosy D’Souza AY: 2011-12 reasons as stipulated in former circular by filing a Miscellaneous Application [for short ‘MA’]. Per contra the Ld. AR referring to annexure attached to order of assessment also solidified facts.
Admittedly, the tax effect in present Revenue’s appeal is ₹52,23,495/- which is much below ₹60 Lakhs. Ergo, keeping in view aforestated Board Circulars we dismiss the present appeal as ‘withdrawn’ on low tax effect [for short ‘LTE’] in limine but with a grant of leave to the appellant revenue to revive the same in accordance with law.
The appeal in result is Dismissed as ‘Withdrawn’. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before.