ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, GONDA vs. M/S B.D AGRICARE PVIVATE LIMITED, BASTI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 508/LKW/2017Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 July 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The assessee cross-objected. The assessee argued that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA & SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Sanjeeve Krishna Sharma, D.R, Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A

PER SUBHASH MALGURIA, J.M.: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gorakhpur for the assessment year 2013-14, and the assessee has also filed Cross Objection. 2. There is delay in filing of Cross Objection by the assessee and the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The ld. D.R. has no objection to the prayer made by the

1.

C. O. No.12/LKW/2018 Page 2 of 3 assessee for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the Cross Objection for hearing.

3.

During the course of hearing before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee has furnished before us the copy of order dated 29.3.2016 issued by the ACIT, Range-2, Gorakhpur under section 143(3) of the Act in the assessee’s case for assessment year 2013-14, as per which the net tax payable is Rs.45,31,512/-, and submitted that the tax effect involved in the appeal filed by the Department is below the monetary limit prescribed by the Board for filing the appeal before the Tribunal and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

4.

The Central Board of Direct Taxes, vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019 in supersession of Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 in consonance with the power entrusted under section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, enhanced the monetary limits for filing of appeals in income-tax cases as follows:

S. Appeals/ SLPs in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (Rs.) No. l. Before Appellate Tribunal 50,00,000/- 2. Before High Court 1,00,00,000/- 3. Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000/-

5.

The tax effect in the appeal filed by the Department does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. Since the ‘tax effect’, as computed in terms of Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019, involved in the appeal filed by the Department does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs, the same is not maintainable in view of CBDT’s Circular C. O. No.12/LKW/2018 Page 3 of 3 No.17/2019, dated 8th August, 2019, and is liable to be dismissed as such.

6.

We, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue in limine, without going into the merits of the case, as in our opinion, the Circular issued by the CBDT is binding on the Department in view of the provisions of Section 268A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.

7.

Since we have dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, the cross objection, filed by the assessee in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A), has become infructuous and accordingly the same is dismissed as infructuous.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/07/2024.

More judgments on Section 268A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →