CIT-II CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BHARDWAJ BUILDERS CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/338/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084435200905 March 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the monetary limit applies even to orders passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable on the ground of monetary limit.

What were the facts?

The appellant (CIT) filed an appeal before the High Court. The respondent argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular. The appellant contended that an exception applied as the order was passed under Section 263.

What were the issues?

Whether the monetary limit for appeals specified by CBDT circulars applies to orders passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 202

ITA-338-2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.03.2026 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II ...Appellant Vs. M/S BHARDWAJ BUILDERS CHANDIGARH …Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dugga, Advocate (through V.C.) Ms. Kavita, Advocate for the appellant

Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate

for respondent

*** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

Learned counsel for the respondent at the outset submits that amount of tax involved is less than Rs.50 lacs. As per circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short ‘CBDT’), appeal is not maintainable. This Court vide order dated 15.03.2023 has dismissed as withdrawn ITA-160-2019 though there was order by Commissioner under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’). Gujarat High Court in “Principal Commissioner Income Tax Vs. Vinodbhai Ranchhodbhai Parekh”, Law Finder Doc ID#1713079 has clearly held that appeal cannot be entertained merely on the ground that order was passed under Section 263 of 1961. 2.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that as per Clause (f) of paragraph 3.1 of aforesaid circular, appeal is maintainable despite tax effect being less than monetary limit. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.03.06 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-338-2009

-2-

Gujarat High Court in Vinodbhai Ranchhodbhai Parekh (supra) noticing CBDT circular has clearly held that monetary limit is applicable even where order has been passed under Section 263 of 1961 Act. In the case in hand, amount of tax involved is less than Rs.50 lacs and as per order dated 15.03.2023 of this Court in ITA-160-2019 and Gujarat High Court in Vinodbhai Ranchhodbhai Parekh (supra) appeal is liable to be dismissed as withdrawn, however, learned counsel for appellant is not willing to withdraw, thus, dismissed on the ground of monetary limit. 4.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

JUDGE March 05, 2026 Deepak DPA

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable

Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.03.06 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →