INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RANCHI, BESIDE RANCHI CLUB, RANCHI vs. SHRI GANPATI HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED , KUTCHERY, RANCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 242/RAN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 October 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)2 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 held that since the tax effect involved (below Rs. 60 lakhs) is below the monetary limit for filing appeals by the revenue, as per CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.9.2024, the revenue's appeal is not maintainable. It further clarified that the exception clause does not apply as the CIT(A) quashed the assessment on technical grounds (reopening) and not on merits.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2015-16, where the CIT(A) had quashed the assessment solely on the ground of reopening. The Sr. DR conceded that the disputed tax effect was below the threshold limit of Rs. 60 lakhs prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals.

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, especially when the CIT(A)'s order quashed the assessment on grounds of reopening and not on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAYShri Ganpati Homes Private Limited,

For Respondent: Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr.DR
Hearing: 08/10/2025Pronounced: 08/10/2025

Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 08/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 08/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10126987 dated 18/09/2023 for the A.Y. 2015-16.

2.

None represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, ld. Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

At the very outset, ld AR submitted that in this appeal the disputed tax effect is below the threshold limited prescribed by CBDT in its Circular No.9 /2024 dated 17.9.2024, as per which, the revenue could not have filed appeal where the tax effect is below Rs.60,00,00/-. Hence, it was his prayer that the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →