Tribunal quashed and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner\u00a0 The Department filed an appeal under section 260A of the Act. The assessee raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limits in CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated August 8, 2019 ([2019] 416 ITR (St.) 106). The Department contended that the circular was not applicable to the appeal arising out of the order passed under section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner. Dismissing the appeal the Court held that\u00a0 the\u00a0 Circular No. 3 of 2018 ([2018] 405 ITR (St.) 29), had been amended by Circular No. 5 of 2019 ([2019] 411 ITR (St.) 7) and Circular No. 17 of 2019 ([2019] 416 ITR (St.) 106). After the amendment, Circular No. 3 of 2018, was modified with regard to the monetary limits prescribed under Circular No. 17 of 2019.\u00a0 Circular No. 17 of 2019 substituted paragraph 5 of Circular No. 3 of 2018.\u00a0 On a conjoint reading of all three circulars, paragraph 11 of Circular No. 3 of 2018, which was substituted by Circular No. 5 of 2019, states that the monetary limits specified in paragraph 3 of Circular No. 3 of 2018, shall not apply to writ matters. The circulars do not distinguish orders passed under section 263 or any other section of the Act, 1961. In view of the order passed by the court in CIT v. Pravinchandra S. Shah (ITA No. 419 of 2009 dt. 13th July\u00a0 2011, if consolidated tax effect were to be taken in the appeal, it would not exceed the monetary limits prescribed in Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated August 8, 2019. The appeal is\u00a0 dismissed due to low tax effect.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Monetary limits-Applicable to revision order passed under section 263 of the Act-Appeal dismissed due to low tax effect. [S. 263, 260A] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39570","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-aie","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39570","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39570"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39570\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42682,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39570\/revisions\/42682"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39570"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}