ITO 20(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. FARIDA M.SHAMA, 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 in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 10 lacs or less should not be filed or pressed, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A). The net tax demand in the appeal was Rs. 6,24,772/-, which is below the Rs. 10 lacs threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.
What were the issues?
Maintainability of Revenue's appeal before the ITAT due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal by the revenue is arising out of order of CIT (OSD) (A)-32, Mumbai in Appeal No. CIT (A)-32/IT-79/17(3) (2)/2014-15 dated 28-04-2015. Assessment was framed by ITO -17(3) (2), Mumbai for the assessment year 2007-08 u/s 143(3) r. w. s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 18-03-2014.
At the outset, it is seen that assessed income in this Revenue’s appeal is Rs.20,34,460/- and net tax demand is Rs. 6,24,772/-. Hence, net tax effect in this appeal of revenue on the disputed additions made by AO and deleted by CIT (A), is less than Rs. 10 lacs.
During the course of hearing before me, the learned Counsel for the assessee, pointed out that in this case, the net tax demand is Rs.6,24,772/- and thus, the tax effect in this appeal is below Rs.10.00 lacs. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in view of the CBDT Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 brought out by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the appeal was not maintainable and be dismissed. The learned Sr. DR also agreed to the facts stated Counsel for the assessee but could not point out whether this case falls under any of the exception provided in the Circular.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. I find from the records before me that the tax involved in the disputed issue is below Rs.10 lacs and therefore, in view of the circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 no appeal should be filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal which has tax effect of Rs. 10.00 lacs or less and this circular is also applicable retrospectively to all pending appeals. The relevant extract the said CBDT Circular (Supra) is as under:- “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 the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”
Considering the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is therefore, dismissed.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026