ITO 25(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. AMRUTLAL CHITALIA (HUF), 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 the CBDT circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs for filing appeals before the Tribunal, is binding on the revenue. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit, they were not maintainable.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed multiple appeals before the ITAT. Upon review, it was observed that the tax effect in all these appeals was less than Rs. 10 lakhs.
What were the issues?
Whether appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable when the tax effect is below the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT circular.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003)(177 Taxation 775) and Pradip J Mehta v. CIT64 citing300 ITR 231 · 2008 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Heard together (5 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per Bench: All these appeals filed at the instance of the Revenue are directed against the separate orders passed by learned CIT(A) in their respective hands.
At the time of hearing, it was noticed that the tax effect involved in all these appeals on the disputed issues is less than Rs.10.00 lacs. For the sake of convenience, we tabulate below the relevant details:-
S.No. Name of assessee Amount in dispute(for quantum appeal) in Rs. 1 Amrutlal Chitalia (HUF) 13,99,387 2 M/s Arvind Engineering Works 19,97,677 3 M/s Khimji Visram and Sons 20,48,759 4 M/s Kalzoom Technologies 25,97,937 Pvt Ltd., 5 Mrs Madhu Gupta 12,50,206
We notice that the revenue is contesting the decision of Ld CIT(A) in granting relief to the extent stated above and hence the tax effect involved on the above said disputed amounts works out to less than Rs.10 lakhs in each of the cases referred above. Recently the CBDT has issued a circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 prescribing new monetary limits for preferring appeals against the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) before the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the circular cited above reads as under: “F No 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt) Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board Direct Taxes Circular No. 21/2015 New Delhi the 10th December, 2015 Sub :Revision of monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before Supreme Court - measures for reducing litigation – Reg Reference is invited to Board's instruction No 5/2014 dated 10.07.2014 wherein monetary limits and other conditions for filing departmental appeals (in Income-tax matters) before Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before the Supreme Court were specified.
In supersession of the above instruction, it has been decided by the Board that departmental appeals may be filed on merits before Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before the Supreme Court keeping in view the monetary limits and conditions specified below.
Henceforth, appeals/ SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder: S No Appeals in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 2 Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3 Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.
For this purpose, "tax effect" means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issues against which appeal is intended to be filed (hereinafter referred to as "disputed issues"). However the tax will not include any interest thereon, except where chargeability of interest itself is in dispute. In case the chargeability of interest is the issue under dispute, the amount of interest shall be the tax effect. In cases where returned loss is reduced or assessed as income, the tax effect would include notional tax on disputed additions. In case of penalty orders, the tax effect will mean quantum of penalty deleted or reduced in the order to be appealed against. 5. ………. 6……… 7. …… 8. ……. 9. …..
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.” 11. …..” It can be noticed that the CBDT has further clarified that this new circular/instruction shall apply retrospectively, i.e., even to the pending appeals. It is also stated that the quantum of penalty deleted or reduced shall be considered for determining the monetary limits.
It is well settled proposition that the circulars issued by the CBDT are binding on the Income Tax Authorities. For this proposition, one may gainfully refer to the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003)(177 Taxation 775) and Pradip J Pronounced accordingly on 6th Jan 2016. घोषणध खुरे न्मधमधरम भें ददनधंकः 6th Jan 2016 को की गई । (AMARJIT SINGH) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai: 6th Jan 2016. व.नन.स./ SRL , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपप अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीरधथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- concerned 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT concerned 4. ववबधगीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई /
DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned गधर्ा पधईर / Guard file. 6. आदेशधनुसधय/ BY ORDER,सहधमक ऩंजीकधय (Asstt.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026