ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ECONOMY SALES, 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 10 lakhs, and was made applicable retrospectively.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2009-10. The assessee also filed cross-objections for AY 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10. The tax effect in these appeals was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal and assessee's cross-objections should be dismissed due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH & SHRI L. P. SAHU
ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue assailing the correctness of the order dated 25/02/2013 passed by CIT (A)- XXVI, New Delhi, pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10, wherein C.O 217/Del/2014 has been filed by the assessee. Apart from that C.O 215 to 216/Del/2014 pertaining to 2007-08 and 2008-09 assessment years have also been field by the assessee in & 2993/Del/2014 which were 2007-08 and 2008-09 assessment years. At the time of hearing, adjournment petition was moved on behalf of the assessee. However, considering the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR that the departmental appeal can be decided on the basis of tax effect, the application was rejected. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the year under consideration the tax effect is much below Rs.10 lacs and in 2007-08 and 2008-09 assessment years also the position was the same for which purposes the appeals had been dismissed. In these circumstances, it was his submission that the C.Os become infructuous.
We have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record on considering the submission of the Ld. Sr. DR CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 which has revised the monetary limit to Rs.10 lakh for filing the appeal by the department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Vide para 10 of the aforesaid Circular Para 3 has been made applicable retrospectively. Considering the settled legal precedent that the Board’s instructions or directions issued to the Income Tax Authorities u/s 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are binding on the authorities, we dismiss the departmental appeal considering the material available on record. The C.Os are accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
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 →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
