ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. PRADEEP AGGARWAL, 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 appeals as the tax effect was below Rs. 10 lakhs, as per the CBDT circular. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed appeals before the ITAT, but the tax effect involved in these appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015. The assessee's counsel argued that the circular was applicable.
What were the issues?
Whether pending appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit should be dismissed in light of CBDT Instruction 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, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI J.S. REDDY & SHRI LALIET KUMAR
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Both these appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against separate orders of the ld. CIT(A) pertaining to different assessees and assessment years. Cross objections have also been filed by the assessee in case of Pradeep Aggarwal. Since the issues involved in these appeals are similar and the appeals and cross objection were heard together, so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
These appeals and cross objection have been fixed for hearing in view of the recent CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, revising the monetary limit of Rs.10.00 lakhs for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal in terms of section 268A(1) of the Income-tax Act.
The CBDT in its recent Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 has provided that no departmental appeal shall be filed before the 1TAT wherein the tax effect involved is less than Rs.10 lakhs. Further, in para 10 of the Circular, it is provided that this instruction would apply retrospectively and the pending appeals below the specified tax limit of Rs.10 lakhs may be withdrawn/not pressed.
The learned CIT-DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue before us, at the outset, submitted that appeals can be withdrawn only after getting the approval of competent authority. He further referred to para 7 of the circular to submit that dismissal of appeal, however, in any case, on account of low tax effect should not be considered as a precedence in the matters of subsequent years where the tax effect is above the monetary limit prescribed by this Circular and the issue should be decided on merits.
The learned counsels for the assessee, on the other hand, stated that the Circular was squarely applicable to the present appeals of the Revenue.
After considering the submissions of both the parties, we find that prima facie, the tax effect involved in these appeals by the Revenue is below Rs. 10.00 lakhs and, therefore, we deem it proper to dismiss the appeals particularly because the pending appeal is covered by circular in view of para 10 of the circular. However, we may clarify that if on receipt of this order, the Assessing Officer finds that the tax effect is above Rs.10 lakhs or in any other manner, the Circular is not applicable in view of exceptions culled out in the Circular, he will be at liberty to file miscellaneous application for recalling of this order which the Tribunal will consider in accordance with law. We further find considerable force in the contention of the CIT/DR that this order cannot be considered as an acceptance by the Revenue on the issue involved in these appeals and will not be an estoppel for the Revenue to take up the issues, involved in these appeals, before ITAT on merits if the tax effect in those years is more than Rs.10 lakhs.
Keeping in view the above Circular and the provisions of section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and without going into merits of the cases, we dismiss the instant appeals filed by the Revenue as tax effect in all the appeals is less than Rs.10 lakhs.
The cross objection also stands dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand 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 Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026