ITO 23(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BRIJESH V SHAH, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT circulars. The assessee's cross-objection was allowed on merits as the enhancement by CIT(A) was made without proper notice.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, but the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated by CBDT circulars. The assessee filed a cross-objection.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT circulars, and whether an enhancement by the CIT(A) is valid without providing notice to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen230 citing56 ITR 198 · 1965 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR.
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Both the appeal as well as the cross objection has been filed against the order of the CIT(A)-33, Mumbai dated 12.11.2013.
So far the appeal filed by the Revenue is concerned; we noted that in this case the tax effect on the income under dispute is less than Rs.10 lac. We further noted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 file no.279 of Misc. 142/2007 – ITJ (PT) has issued the direction in supersession of the Instruction No.5/2014 dated 10.07.2014 in pursuance with the power interested u/s.268A of the Income Tax Act that no appeal should be filed before this Tribunal in case tax effect does not exceed Rs.10 lac. The “tax effect” in this regard means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that what have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of issues against which appeal is intended to be filed. This circular further states that tax will not include any interest thereon the chargeability of interest itself is in dispute. We further noted that under paragraph 10 which is reproduced as under, it has been mentioned in the circular that this instruction will apply even to the pending appeals. “10. This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before & CO 78-M-15 A.Y. 2009-10 [ITO V/s. Shri Brijesh V. shah] Page 3
the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”
In the impugned case, we noted that the tax effect on the issue under dispute does not exceed Rs.10 lac. In view of this fact as per the instruction, the Revenue is not supposed to press the appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue in limine without going into the merits of the case as in our opinion the circular issued by CBDT are binding on the departmental officers in view of the provision of Section 268A(1) of the Act. The said view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Navneet Lal Zaveri Vs. AAC 56 ITR 198 (SC). We accordingly dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
Coming to the Cross Objection, ITAT, New Delhi ‘A’ Bench in case of ACIT vs. Ajay Kalia in with C.O. No.254/Del/2014 held that even after dismissal of Revenue’s appeal on account of tax effect, Cross Objections are survived. So, following same reasoning, we adjudicate the Cross Objection on merit.
4.1 At the outset of hearing, ld. Authorized Representative pointed out that in this case enhancement has been done without giving notice to assessee. This fact has not been disputed by Revenue. So, we are not inclined to concur with the finding of CIT(A), wherein CIT(A) himself has enhanced the addition without giving notice to the assessee. Accordingly, enhancement in question is set aside. Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. & CO 78-M-15 A.Y. 2009-10 [ITO V/s. Shri Brijesh V. shah] Page 4
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of Cross Objection is allowed as indicated above.
Pronounced in the open Court on this the 23rd day of August, 2016.
Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai: Dated 23/08/2016 True Copy Prabhat kesarwani आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई ।
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 →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026