DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. USG BUILDWELL PVT. 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 not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for filing appeals before the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT for AY 2006-07. The Department requested an adjournment which was rejected. The assessee's AR argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to revised monetary limits for filing appeals.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT given the revised monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT circular.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL, AM:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 21.11.2014 in relation to the Assessment Year 2006-07.
The Department has requested for adjournment in all the cases, including the present case, fixed today for hearing before the Bench by giving the reason that: “CIT( DR) is not available.” There is neither any one from the side of the Revenue to represent the Revenue nor to explain the reasons as to why the Bench be allowed to crash. The ld. AR strongly opposed to the granting of adjournment. I am satisfied that the Revenue’s prayer for adjournment cannot be accepted. The same is, therefore, rejected and the appeal is being taken up for disposal on merits ex parte qua the Revenue.
During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that pursuant to the mandate of section 268A, the CBDT has issued Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 with retrospective effect, revising the monetary limit to Rs.10,00,000/- for not filing appeals before the Tribunal. He further submitted that as the tax effect involved in the instant appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, the extant appeal is not maintainable.
I have heard the ld. AR and perused the relevant material on record. Going by the prescription of the aforenoted Circular, I am of the view that the Revenue should have either not filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal or withdrawn the same as the tax effect in this appeal is admittedly less than the prescribed limit for not filing the appeals. From para 10 of the above Circular it is palpable that the Instruction is applicable to the pending appeals also with retrospective effect and there is a clear-cut direction to the Department to withdraw or not press such appeals filed before the ITAT wherein tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-. Ex conseqeunti I dismiss the instant appeal without going into merits of the case.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.
The order pronounced in the open court on 19.07.2016.
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 →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026