DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DATAVISION SYSTEMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI
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 the appeal was filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a pecuniary limit for appeals. As the circular's provisions were made applicable retrospectively, the appeal was deemed non-maintainable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT, but the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated by a CBDT circular. The parties agreed that the tax effect was below Rs. 10 lakh.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable when the tax effect is below the limit prescribed by a binding CBDT circular, especially when the circular has retrospective applicability.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH & SH.PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue assailing the correctness of the order dated 09.07.2013 of CIT(A)-XIII, Delhi pertaining to 2010-11 assessment year.
It was a common stand of the parties before the Bench that the tax effect in the present appeal is well below Rs.10 lakh. We have considered the material available on record. We find that the appeal has been preferred by the Revenue in violation of Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 of CBDT. By the aforesaid circular the pecuniary limit for filing the appeal before the ITAT has been prescribed beyond Rs.10 lakh. Para 3 of the aforesaid Circular has been made applicable vide para 10 retrospectively. Considering the settled legal precedent that the Board’s instructions or directions issued to the Income Tax Authorities u/s 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are binding on the authorities, we hold that the appeal is non-maintainable.
I.T.A .No.-5361/Del/2013
In view of the above discussion, the present appeal preferred by the Revenue in violation of CBDT Circular No.21/2015 (cited supra) is not maintainable and hence, the same is dismissed as such making it clear that since the present appeal has not been disposed of on merits, but due to the above reason, this order will not have any judicial precedence. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as non-maintainable.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 24th October, 2016.
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 →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
