ACIT, MANGALORE vs. E. VIDYARANYA HUF, DAKSHINA KANNADA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular revising monetary limits for appeals, which stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be pressed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed appeals before the ITAT for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The tax effect involved in these appeals was below Rs. 10 lakhs.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed due to a low tax effect, in light of the CBDT's revised monetary limits for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM :
These appeals by the Revenue are directed against respective orders of the CIT(A)-VI, Bangalore, dated 26th June 2012 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09.
At the outset, it is observed that tax effect involved in these appeals is below Rs.10 lakhs. The CBDT, with a view to to 1130/Bang/2012 Page 2 of 4 reduce unnecessary litigation on their part, has issued a circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, revising the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court. Insofar as the Tribunal is concerned, the monetary limit specified is Rs.10 lakhs. The CBDT specified that where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit specified therein, the concerned authority has to withdraw its appeal or it need not press the same. It is further specified that the tax effect indicated therein is applicable to all pending appeals, though they are filed by the Revenue prior to the issuance of the said circular. It was also clarified that the Assessing Officer has to calculate the tax effect separately for every assessment year in respect of the disputed issue/s in the case of every assessee. If, in the case of an assessee, the disputed issue arises in more than one year(s), appeal(s) can be filed in respect of such assessment year(s) in which tax effect in respect of the disputed issue exceeds the monetary limit specified. In other words, if there are a number of years, if the tax effect is less than the specified limit in one year, appeal cannot be filed or the same has to be withdrawn for that year, for want of tax effect. However, an exception is made to this direction with regard to a combined order passed by the first appellate authority. That is, if in one of the years the tax effect is more than Rs.10 lakhs and the Revenue decides to file an appeal, in respect of other years covered by the said order also, Revenue to 1130/Bang/2012 Page 3 of 4 is eligible to file appeal, even though the tax effect in each of those years is less than Rs.10 lakhs. It was also clarified that merely because the appeal is dismissed for want of tax effect, it does not come in the way of the Department in filing appeal for other years(s), and it does not mean that the Department has acquiesced the issue.
The above circular was specifically made applicable to all pending appeals. In the present case, the tax effect on the addition in dispute, which was deleted by the CIT(A) by the impugned order is indisputably below 10 lakhs.
The Legislature in its wisdom has introduced section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereby the Board is empowered to issue orders/instructions/directions to the income-tax authorities, fixing the monetary limits for the purpose of regulating the filing of appeals. In the light of the circular dated 10/12/2015, issued by the CBDT in exercise of the powers conferred in it by subsection (1) of section 268A, we are of the view that the appeal filed herein should not have been pressed by the Revenue. The Learned Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the Revenue effect in this appeal is less than the prescribed limit in para-3 of the above circular issued by the CBDT. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the appeals of the Revenue as withdrawn/not pressed, as pronounced in the open court. to 1130/Bang/2012 Page 4 of 4 5. However, the revenue is at liberty to move appropriate application/petition in case it is found that the case is covered by one of the exception(s) carved out in the said Circular.
In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.
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 A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- Kundan Patel vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Pacific Export vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Kashiram Fuels Lole Propritorship Firm Through Proprietor Swati vs. Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026