What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that appeals with a tax effect below ₹20,00,000/- are not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No.3/2018. The Departmental Representative agreed with this position.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A). The assessee did not appear for the hearing. The tax effect in the appeal was less than ₹20,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the ITAT due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT guidelines.

ITO vs Anitha Amarnath | ITAT Chennai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’/SMC BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE

अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri B.Sadadevan, JCIT ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : None सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 31-10-2018 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31-10-2018 आदेश आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश This appeal of the Revenue is directed against an order dated 23.04.2018 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the 2. Respondent/Assessee. On perusal of the records, I find that the tax effect in this case is less than ₹20,00,000/- and hence appeal would not lie before this Tribunal by virtue of CBDT Circular No.3/2018, dated 11.07.2018. learned Departmental Representative fairly agreed to :- 2 -: this. The tax effect in this appeal being less than ₹20,00,000/-, such appeal cannot survive.

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

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 31st day of October, 2018, at Chennai. अ"ाहम पी.जॉज" (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सद"य चे"ई/Chennai "दनांक/Dated: 31st October, 2018 Somu

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ANITHA AMARNATH, CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments