THE ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GANDHIDHAM vs. M/S. ADITYA MARINE LTD., GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 58/RJT/2019Status: HeardITAT Rajkot29 July 2022AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the tax effect in the appeal was indeed below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A). The assessee raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold limit set by a CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SMT.SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE

Hearing: 29/07/2022Pronounced: 29/07/2022

ITO (International M/s.Aditya Marine Ltd. Taxation) Vs (Agent of M/s.Martrade Gulf Gandhidham. Logistics, FZCO, UAE) Room No.11-13, Dhiraj Chambers Plot No.36, Sec-9/A Gandhidham 370201. अपीलाथ�/ (Appellant) �� यथ�/(Respondent) Assessee by : Smt.Ashta Maniyar, Ld.AR Revenue by : Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld.Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 29/07/2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 28.12.2018 pertaining to the Asst.Year 2017-18 passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short).

2.

At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable because of tax effect involved in this appeal is below Rs.50 lakhs in view of the CBDT circular dated 8.8.2019 prohibiting

2 of the appeal before the Tribunal. On a query by the Bench about the tax effect involved in the present appeal, the Department has filed a letter dated 29.7.2022 wherein tax effect stated to be Rs.35,23,290/- which is below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal. The contents of the letter read as under:

“2. The hearing in the case was adjourned for a day as the AR of the assessee pointed out that the tax effect in the case was below 5 lacs and therefore not maintainable in view of Circular No.17 of 2019. In this connection, a clarification was sought from the ITO (Int.Tax.), Gandhidham. Vide his mail dated 28.7.2022 (copy enclosed)l, the ITO has intimated that the tax effect in the case was Rs.35,23,290/- only. In view of the above, the appeal filed is not maintainable and may be withdrawn.

3. Submitted for kind consideration. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (B.D.Gupta) Joint.Commissioner of Income-tax (Sr.D.R.,) ITAT, Rajkot

In view of the above letter of the Department, the ld.DR has left the issue to the Tribunal to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

3.

After hearing both the sides and after perusal of the above CBDT Instruction, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue falls within the purview of the CBDT Instruction cited (supra). It is not disputed by the Revenue that tax effect on the disputed addition is less than Rs.50 lakhs, and therefore, keeping in view the above CBDT circular and provisions of section 268A of the Income Tax Act, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable and to be dismissed accordingly. It is dismissed.

4.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect.

Order pronounced in the Court on 29th July, 2022 at Ahmedabad.

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →