ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MS. NISHU SINGH, 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 departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 10 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
What were the facts?
The department filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions of Rs. 8,55,411/-. The assessee's counsel pointed out that the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lacs, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT circular.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the maintainability of the departmental appeal before the ITAT based on the tax effect, in light of CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI J.S. REDDY & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.
This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 04.10.2013 of CIT (A)-XXIV, New Delhi for AY 2007-08, wherein the Ld. CIT (A) has deleted additions amounting to Rs. 8,55,411/-.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the tax effect in the departmental appeal is less than Rs. 10 lacs. She filed a calculation as per which the disputed Nishu Singh Page 1 of 3 tax comes to Rs. 4,20,753/-. It was submitted that in view of the CBDT’s latest circular no. 21/2015 dated 10/12/2015, the appeal was not maintainable.
The ld. D.R., although supported the order of the Assessing Officer, but could not controvert the fact that tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/-.
From Clause 10 of the above circular it is clear that these instructions are applicable to the pending appeals also and there is clear cut instruction to the department to withdraw or not to press the appeals filed before the ITAT wherein tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-. These instructions are operative retrospectively to the pending appeals also.
Keeping in view the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 and also the provisions of Section 268A of Income Tax Act, 1961, we are of the view that the Revenue’s appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the above, without going into merits of the case, we dismiss the appeal filed by the department. Nishu Singh Page 2 of 3 We do, however, add that if on verification of the facts and the calculation of the tax effect, the department feels that the tax effect has been wrongly calculated, department shall be free to move a Miscellaneous Application for the recall of this order.
In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Court on 24.08.2016
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 →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
