What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal agreed that the tax effect was below the specified limit. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue could not be sustained.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A). The assessee's counsel pointed out that the tax effect was below the threshold limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before the ITAT when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

ITO vs Sl(Spl) 151 Karkoodalpatty Paccs… | ITAT Chennai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

For Respondent: Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against an order dated 31.07.2017 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Salem.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out the tax effect in this 2. case was less than �20,00,000/- and hence an appeal would not lie

ITA No.2368//2017. :- 2 -: before this Tribunal by virtue of CBDT Circular No.3/2018, dated 11.07.2018.

Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative fairly agreed 3.

that the tax effect was less than �20,00,000/- and by virtue of para 13 of the Circular mentioned (supra) pending appeals below the specified tax limit had to be withdrawn/not pressed.

We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Considering the submissions of the ld. Authorised Representative and the tax effect in this appeal which is less than �20,00,000/-, appeal of the Revenue cannot survive.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed . 5.

Order pronounced on Thursday, the 20th day of September, 2018, at Chennai.

ITO WARD 3, NAMAKKAL vs. SL(SPL) 151 KARKOODALPATTY PACCS LTD., NAMAKKAL

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments