ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. RAKESH, HARYANA
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 prescribes a pecuniary limit of Rs. 10 lakh for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A). The tax effect involved in the appeal 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 prescribed pecuniary limit by the CBDT circular, and if such circulars are binding on the authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-II’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH
ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue assailing the correctness of the order dated 24.04.2015 of CIT(A)-15, Delhi pertaining to 2008-09 assessment year.
No one was present on behalf of the assessee. Inviting attention to the grounds raised, the Ld.Sr.DR Ms. Anima Barnwal submitted that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is much below Rs.10 lakh accordingly, in the light of the CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December 2015, the appeal may be treated as not pressed. I have considered the material available on record and I 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, I hold that the appeal is non- maintainable. While so holding it is made clear that since the present appeal has I.T.A .No.-4590/Del/2015
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 →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026