INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(6), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU GUPTA, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2877/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2011-12Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)3 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 confirmed that the tax effect was indeed below Rs. 50 lakhs. In light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which established a monetary limit for appeals to the Tribunal, and its clarification that it applies to pending appeals, the Revenue's appeal was found not maintainable and consequently dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee's counsel contended that the tax effect involved was below Rs. 50 lakhs, rendering the appeal non-maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT if the tax effect is below the Rs. 50 lakh monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SH. AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 21.05.2024Pronounced: 28.05.2024

Appellant by : -None- Respondent by : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 21.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement 28.05.2024 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY – JUDICIAL MEMBER :

The instant appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – Delhi under Section 253(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the tax effect involved in the grounds raised by the Revenue is below Rs.50 lakhs. Therefore, in view of the recent CBDT

ITO vs. Anju Gupta Asst.Year – 2011-12 - 2 - Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019, raising the monetary limit for filing of the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal to Rs.50 lakhs and the subsequent clarification of the CBDT, vide Notification dated 20th August, 2019 stating that the said Circular is applicable even to pending appeals, the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable.

3.

The Learned DR, on the other hand, fairly conceded that the tax effect involved in the grounds raised by the Revenue being below Rs.50 lakhs, the appeal filed by the Revenue squarely falls within the ambit of the recent CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019 and the subsequent clarification dated 20th August, 2019.

4.

We have heard Learned DR and perused the material available on record. We find, the tax effect involved in the grounds raised by the Revenue is admittedly below Rs.50 lakhs. Therefore, in view of the CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019 raising the monetary limit for filing of the appeals by the Revenue before the Tribunal to Rs.50 lakhs and the subsequent clarification dated 20th August, 2019 to the effect that the said Circular is applicable even to pending appeals, the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

5.

However, if the Revenue at any point of time finds that the tax effect involved in the grounds of the Revenue is more than Rs.50 lakhs or ITO vs. Anju Gupta Asst.Year – 2011-12 - 3 - that the same is falling under the exceptions provided in the said Circular, the Revenue may move necessary application for recall of this order.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →