ITO, GURGAON vs. SH. LAJJA RAM, GURGAON
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 for filing appeals before the ITAT. The circular was made applicable retrospectively.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 1997-98. The tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(A) was below Rs. 10 lakh.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT given 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
ORDER
PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue assailing the correctness of the order dated 14.11.2013 of CIT(A)-2, Faridabad pertaining to 1997-98 assessment year. It was a common stand of the parties that the Revenue by the present appeal is assailing the relief granted to the extent of Rs.29,56,280/- and the tax effect thereof is much below Rs.10 lakh. Considering the material on record, we find that the present 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.-341/Del/2014
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 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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026