ITO,WARD-53(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MONDAL LIQUOR ENTERPRISE, SOUTH 24 PARGANAS
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the CBDT's revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn and dismissed it.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made on account of unexplained cash credits and unproved sundry creditors. The tax effect of the appeal was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect is below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
Date of concluding the hearing : December 17, 2015 Date of pronouncing the order : December 17, 2015
O R D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap:- This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, Kolkata dated 05.07.2012 for the assessment year 2007-08, whereby he deleted the additions of Rs.15,39,116/- and Rs.40,018/- made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained cash credits under section 68 and unproved sundry creditors respectively.
At the time of hearing before us, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is, however, noted from the grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal that the tax effect involved therein is less than the revised monetary limit recently fixed by the CBDT vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 at Rs.10,00,000/- for filing the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal and this position is not disputed even by the ./2012 Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 2 of 2 ld. D.R. In Circular No. 21/2015 (supra) recently issued by the CBDT, the monetary limit for filing the appeals by the Revenue before the Tribunal has been increased to Rs.10,00,000/- and as clarified in the said Circular, the said monetary limit is applicable retrospectively even to the appeals pending before the Tribunal. The CBDT has also instructed that such pending appeals below this specified tax limit of Rs.10,00,000/- may be withdrawn/ not pressed. Keeping in view the instruction given by the CBDT vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, which is squarely applicable in the present case, the appeal filed by the Revenue in this case is treated as withdrawn/not pressed and dismissed accordingly.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026