DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SANDHU CONTRACTOR PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6816/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 March 2016AY 2004-052 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it violated the CBDT circular on pecuniary limits, which has statutory force. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without deciding on merits.

What were the facts?

The Revenue preferred an appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order quashing the AO's action of invoking Section 147. The assessee also filed a cross-objection. The appeal was filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 regarding pecuniary limits.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT given the violation of CBDT circulars prescribing pecuniary limits for appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI C.M. GARG & SHRI L.P. SAHU

For Respondent: Ms. Ritu Sharma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.03.2016Pronounced: 30.03.2016

ORDER Per Bench: It is apparent from record that the present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the action of the ld. CIT(A)-X, Delhi – order dated 28.10.2013 whereby he has quashed the action of the AO of invoking the provisions of section 147 of the IT Act. The assessee has also filed the cross objection in this appeal of the Revenue. Undisputedly, the present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, wherein the pecuniary limit for preferring the appeal by the Revenue before the ITAT has been prescribed beyond Rs.10 lacs. The above circular on pecuniary limit has now statutory force within the provisions of section 268A of the IT Act, hence, the present appeal is not maintainable. The ld. Sr. DR, Ms. Ritu Sharma requested that while dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, it may be made clear that the present order will have no precedential value.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →