ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ARIHANT ELECTRICALS, 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 appeals as not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A) order for AY 2004-05 and 2005-06. The tax effect in these appeals was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.
What were the issues?
Whether appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit. The maintainability of cross-objections when the main appeals are dismissed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY & SH. A.T.VARKEY
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These appeals are filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIX, New Delhi dated 12.03.2012 pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2004-05 and 2005-06.
& 2539/Del/2012 A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 Cross Objections Nos. 244 and 245/Del/12 (In ITA 2538 & 2539/Del/12) Arihant Electricals, N.Del The assessee has filed Cross Objections for both the A.Ys 2004-05 and 2005-06. 1.1. The tax effect in both these appeals by the Revenue do not exceed the monetary limit of Rs.10 lakhs specified in recent CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December,2015, F.No. 279/Misc./142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) read with S.268 A of the Income Tax Act 1961. Further in this CBDT Circular, at para 10 it is specified that the Instruction will apply retrospectively, to all pending appeals.
We have heard Sh.Ravi Jain, Ld.CIT, D.R. on behalf of Revenue and Shri Abhishek Anand, Ld.Counsel for the assessee.
2.1. The Ld.CIT, D.R. could not controvert the fact that the tax effect on the quantum of income in dispute is below the monetary limit of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs only).
2.2. Hence we dismiss these appeals filed by the Revenue on the ground that the tax effect in the present appeals do not exceed the monetary limit specified by the CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December,2015, F.No. 279/Misc./142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) read with S.268 A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and hence not maintainable.
2.3. In case there is a mistake in the calculation or if the cases are covered by any of the exception specified in the Circular, the revenue may file a Misc. Application u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 pointing out the mistake and if the Bench is convinced of the mistake, this order will be recalled and the appeals restored for fresh disposal on merits. & 2539/Del/2012 A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 Cross Objections Nos. 244 and 245/Del/12 (In ITA 2538 & 2539/Del/12) Arihant Electricals, N.Del
Since we have dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, the C.Os. filed by the assessee have become infructuous and are dismissed as such.
In the result the Revenue’s appeals for the A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005- 06, as well as the assessee’s Cross Objections both are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 23rd February, 2016.
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 →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026