2019 (9) TMI 998 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed due to low tax effect under CBDT Circular No.17/2019. Challenge deemed infructuous.

ACIT, SPL. RANGE-3, NEW DELHI Versus JASMOHAN SINGH,

The appeal was dismissed as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50,00,000 as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. Both parties acknowledged this ... Maintainability of appeal - Monetary limit - low tax effect - CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019 effect - HELD THAT:- In view of the CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019 having retrospective effect as coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Dinesh Madhavlal Patel [2019 (8) TMI 752 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] has already decided the issue as to the applicability of the captioned circular to the pending appeals in affirmative and what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid appeal is not maintainable because of low tax effect i.e. less than ₹ 50,00,000/- hence, the aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed having been become infructuous. However, in case, the present appeal is found to be maintainable at any stage for any technical reasons, the Department shall be at liberty to seek recall of this order under relevant provisions of law. Issues:1. Application for early hearing in the main appeal.2. Tax effect below prescribed limit.3. Appeal to set aside orders passed by Commissioner of Income-tax.4. CBDT Circular No.17/2019 and its impact on filing appeals.5. Enhancement of monetary limits for filing appeals.6. Applicability of CBDT Circular to pending appeals.7. Dismissal of appeal due to low tax effect.1. Application for early hearing in the main appeal:The Assessee filed an Application for Early hearing in the main Appeal, but during the hearing, both parties agreed that the tax effect involved was below the prescribed limit. Consequently, the Application for early hearing was deemed infructuous and dismissed.2. Tax effect below prescribed limit:The appeal was filed by the Appellant to challenge orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax for the assessment year 2014-15. It was noted that the appeal had a low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which directs that appeals should not be preferred if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50,00,000. Both the Departmental Representative and the Assessee's Representative acknowledged this fact, leading to a request for the appeal to be dismissed based on the circular.3. Appeal to set aside orders passed by Commissioner of Income-tax:The Appellant sought to set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-34, New Delhi for the assessment year 2014-15 through the present appeal.4. CBDT Circular No.17/2019 and its impact on filing appeals:The CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals in income tax cases. The circular specified that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50,00,000 before the Appellate Tribunal. The circular aimed to reduce litigation and provide clarity on the filing of appeals based on the tax effect involved.5. Enhancement of monetary limits for filing appeals:The circular enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals in income-tax cases before different authorities. It provided specific monetary limits for appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, High Courts, and the Supreme Court. The circular aimed to streamline the process and reduce unnecessary litigation.6. Applicability of CBDT Circular to pending appeals:The Tribunal, in a previous case, had affirmed the retrospective applicability of the CBDT Circular No.17/2019 to pending appeals. Considering this and the low tax effect in the present appeal, it was concluded that the appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed as infructuous.7. Dismissal of appeal due to low tax effect:As the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 50,00,000, in compliance with the CBDT Circular, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. However, if found maintainable at any stage for technical reasons, the Department could seek a recall of the order under relevant provisions of the law.