DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. NILANJANA PRASADENDU PURKAYASTHA, MUMBAI
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 as per CBDT instructions, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakh are not maintainable before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. However, during the hearing, the Revenue's representative pointed out that the tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Ashwani Taneja
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14/12/2012 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai.
During hearing of this appeal, none was present for the assessee in spite of issuance of registered AD notice. However, at the outset, ld. DR, Shri Suman Kumar, fairly brought to our notice that the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed monetary limit of Rs.10 lakh, for filing the appeal before this Tribunal.
2.1. We have considered the submissions of ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In view of the above, it is noted that the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed limit of Rs.10 lakh for filing the appeal before the Tribunal, as contained in CBDT instruction No.21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015 (F No.279/Misc./142/2007-IT(PT), applicable with retrospective effect, wherein, the Department was advised/directed by the Board not to file appeal in the cases where the tax effect does not exceed the following monetary limit.:-
Sl. Appeals in Income –tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs.) No. 1. Before ITAT 10,00,000/- 2. U/s 260 A before Hon’ble High 20,00,000/- Court 3. Before Hon’ble Supreme Court 25,00,000/-
Smt. Nilanjana Prasadendu Purkayashtha
In view of the above instruction, since, the tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, consequently, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable, therefore, dismissed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 22/12/2016.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026