ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. MEENA VALECHA, 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 Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it was hit by a CBDT instruction regarding the minimum tax effect for filing appeals. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection became infructuous.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT, and the assessee filed a cross-objection. The appeal was against an order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect and the applicability of CBDT instructions. Whether the assessee's cross-objection is maintainable after the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR & BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARYSHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY
The appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 are directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-14, New Delhi dated 27th March, 2017.
2 ITA-3430/Del/2017 & CO-160/Del/2017
At the time of hearing before us, we find prima-facie that the appeal of the Revenue is hit by CBDT instruction no.3 of 2018 dated 11.08.2018 whereby the Board has prohibited its subordinate authorities from filing of the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) where the tax effect by virtue of the relief given by the CIT(A) is less than `20 lakhs. The instructions have been made applicable with retrospective effect, meaning thereby, these instructions are applicable on pending appeals also. In the present case, the tax effect on the quantum disputed by the Revenue does not exceed Rs.20 lakhs. Therefore, the present appeal of the Revenue is hit by the CBDT Circular and hence not maintainable. Further, learned Departmental Representative has not pointed out whether the case of the Revenue falls within the ambit of exceptions provided in the Circular or not. Thus, keeping in view the above CBDT circular and provisions of section 268A of the Income Tax Act, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is observed that, in case on re-verification at the end of the Assessing Officer it comes to the notice that the tax effect is more or Revenue’s case falls within the ambit of exceptions provided in the Circular, then the Department will be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall of this order. Such application should be filed within the time period prescribed in the Act. In view of the above, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect.
Since we have already dismissed the appeal of the Revenue due to low tax effect, the cross-objection of the assessee has become infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed.
3 ITA-3430/Del/2017 & CO-160/Del/2017
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross- objection of the assessee is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 31st July, 2019.
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 Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026