ACIT, CIRCLE - 42, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD vs. SABYASACHI ROYCHOWDHURY, MURSHIDABAD
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that all Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The cross-objection was dismissed for non-prosecution.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was hearing multiple appeals filed by the Revenue. The primary consideration for dismissing these appeals was the tax effect involved in each case.
What were the issues?
Whether appeals filed by the Revenue should be dismissed due to low tax effect as per the revised monetary limits in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.501 citing267 ITR 272 · 2004 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri S.S.Godara, JM & Dr. A.L. Saini, AM]
ORDER PER S.S. GODAR, Judicial Member:
1. 1. These Revenue’s appeals arise out of the various orders of the learned CIT(A)’s appeals orders in assessments framed u/s 147 / 143(3) / 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’ and assessee’s Cross Objection No. 62/Kol/2018 arising out ITA No.794/Kol/2018.
2. It is seen at the outset that the tax effect on the disputed additions before us is less than Rs. 20 lacs in all cases i.e. less than the prescribed revised threshold limit in CBDT’s latest Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. It will be pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the said Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018:- “3 . Henceforth, appeals/ SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder: Sl. No. Appeals/SLP’s in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs) 1. Before Appellate Tribunal 20,00,000/- 2. Before High Court 50,00,000/- 3. Before Supreme Court 1,00,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.
4. For this purpose, 'tax effect' means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issues against which appeal is intended to be filed (hereinafter referred to as 'disputed issues’). Further, 'tax effect' shall be tax including applicable surcharge and cess. However, the tax will not include any interest thereon, except where chargeability of interest itself is in dispute. In case the chargeability of interest is the issue under dispute, the amount of interest shall be the tax effect. In cases where returned loss is reduced or assessed as income, the tax effect would include notional tax on disputed additions. In case of penalty orders, the tax effect will mean quantum of penalty deleted or reduced in the order to be appealed against.”
3.1 We find that intention behind the Circular No3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 needs to be understood in the following perspective:- By passage of time, the money value has gone down, the cost of litigation expenses has gone up, number of assesses on the files of the department have been increased and consequently, the burden on the department is also increased to a tremendous extent. The Corridors of the Superior Courts are choked with huge pendency of cases. In this view of the matter, the CBDT has rightly taken a decision to revise the monetary limits in tune with the present value of money and with a view to reduce the litigation and offering relief to small tax payers. This is also in view of the fact that time and energy of the department could be used more productively and efficiently to catch hold of big fishes, who in turn would contribute more to the development of the country.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jamnagar vs Chandrashekhar Sharad Yagnik, JamnagarRajkot6 Feb 2026Dismissed
Also relies on Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal because the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000 prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 for filing appeals before the ITAT. The tribunal e...
- Income Tax Officer, Morbi vs Neetaben Atulbhai Sherasiya, MorbiRajkot13 Oct 2025Dismissed
Also relies on Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-, which is the revised monetary limit for appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue.
- Income Tax Officer, Morbi vs Pravinkumar Jethabhai Mordiya, MorbiRajkot30 Jun 2025Dismissed
Also relies on Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the appeal was filed contrary to the policy decision laid down in the circular, it was dismissed. The revenue is at liberty to move the tribunal for...
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Ratnabali Capital Markets Private Limited…Kolkata18 Nov 2024Dismissed
Also relies on Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the fact that the tax effect of the disputed additions was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
- Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs Mahacol Tie Up Pvt Ltd, KolkataKolkata9 Oct 2024Dismissed
Also relies on Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. However, it dismissed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Deepak Kumar Daiya vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 4 Nov 2026
- Tvl. Devaerakkam Mercy Mary vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 4 Nov 2026
- Procter And Gamble Health LTD vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Ritika Ispat PVT. Limited, Balanda, Sundargarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026