What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Departmental Representative could not provide any reason for the appeal to lie. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A). The total income assessed was Rs. 3,28,638/-. The tax effect was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

DCIT vs Ravi George | ITAT Chennai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE & SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against an order dated 30.11.2016 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai.

Bench pointed out to the ld. Departmental Representative 2. that the total income assessed itself was only �3,28,638/- and the tax . :- 2 -: effect was less than ten lakhs. Bench queried whether the appeal will lie, in view of CBDT Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015.

Ld. Departmental Representative fairly agreed that tax effect was less than the limit mentioned in the CBDT circular.

We have considered the submissions and perused the orders 4. of the authorities below. Ld. Departmental Representative could not point out whether the case fell within any of the exemptions mentioned in Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015. As per this circular an appeal of the Revenue will not lie before this Tribunal where the tax effect is less than �10,00,000/-.

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. RAVI GEORGE, CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments