ACIT, MEERUT vs. SHRI SURENDER UPPAL, DEHRADUN
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 dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to low tax effect. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed for non-prosecution as they did not appear for the hearing.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed appeals before the ITAT, but the learned DR pointed out that the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The assessee had also filed cross-objections.
What were the issues?
Whether Revenue's appeals should be withdrawn or not pressed due to low tax effect. Whether assessee's cross-objections should be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
- Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT2,040 citing223 ITR 480 · 1997 · HC
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER BENCH
The appeals and cross-objections are filed by the Revenue and assessee respectively.
The Ld. DR pointed out that the Tax Effect in the present appeal is less than Rs. 10 Lakhs. In terms of CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December,2015, F.No. 279/Misc./142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) read with S.268 A of the Income Tax Act 1961, this appeal by the Revenue should have been withdrawn or should not be pressed by the Revenue. Since the main appeals do not survive, the cross objections to the relevant appeals filed by the assessee also become infructuous.
In the result Revenue’s appeals are dismissed being low tax effect.
In respect of the cross objections filed by the assessee, despite sending notice of hearing sufficiently in advance, neither assessee attended nor any application for adjournment has been received. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested to prosecute these cross objections.
Having regard to Rule 19(2) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. [38 ITD 320 (Delhi)] and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT [223 ITR 480 (MP)], these cross objections are treated as un-admitted and dismissed.
In result, the cross objections of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17th MAY, 2017.
More judgments on Section 268A
- Income Tax Officer, Ajmer vs Hemant Kumar Sharma, AjmerITA 1506/JPR/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Income Tax Officer, Indore vs Aashta Doshi, IndoreITA 789/IND/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs Khushal Madhavlal Darji, AhmedabadITA 82/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana vs Hemantkumar Faljibhai Chaudhary, MehsanaITA 475/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Dy. CIT-4(1), Indore vs Kiran Bajpai, IndoreITA 426/IND/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
