DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TELEXCELL INFORMATION SYSTEMS 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 it was filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a pecuniary limit for filing appeals. The Board's instructions are binding on tax authorities.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT challenging a relief granted to the assessee. The tax effect of the relief was below Rs. 10 lakhs.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal filed by the Revenue before the ITAT is maintainable when the tax effect is below the pecuniary limit prescribed by 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: ‘D’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH & SH.L.P.SAHU
Date of Hearing 28.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement 29.07.2016 ORDER
PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue assailing the correctness of the order dated 02.08.2010 of CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi pertaining to 2005-06 assessment year. The Ld. Sr.DR on considering the impugned order submitted that most of the additions have been confirmed and the appeal is challenging the relief granted to the extent of Rs.17,61,567/- thus the tax effect is well below Rs.10 lakhs. No one was present on behalf of the assessee. Considering the 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 lakhs. 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 present appeal is not maintainable.
I.T.A .No.-4625/Del/2010
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, 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 29th July 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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026