The Commissisoner Of Income Tax ... vs State Bank Of Hyderabad
2022 Latest Caselaw 4814 Tel

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                      AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


                     I.T.T.A.No.246 of 2005

JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



     Heard Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Standing

Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for the

appellant.


2.   This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax

Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter), has been preferred

by the revenue as the appellant against the order dated

28.12.2004

passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,

Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad (Tribunal), in Interest Tax

Appeal No.7/Hyd/99 for the assessment year 1995-96.

3. Assessee before us is the State Bank of India (SBI).

4. From a perusal of the assessment order dated

17.11.1997, we find that the aggregate interest tax of

Rs.7,95,77,777.00 was collected from the borrowers and

included in the gross interest offered to tax.

4.1 It is submitted that 3% of the aforesaid amount

would be the disputed tax which comes to around Rs.24.00

lakhs.

5. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued

Circular No.17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019, amending the

previous Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, by

further enhancing the monetary limits for filing appeals by

the Income Tax Department before the Income Tax

Appellate Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court as a

measure for reducing litigation. In paragraph 2 of the said

circular we find that the monetary limit fixed for filing an

appeal before the High Court is Rs.1.00 crore.

6. In the instant appeal, tax effect is well below the

monetary limit.

7. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Department is

dismissed in terms of the aforesaid Circular No.17 of 2019,

dated 08.08.2019. However, if the appeal comes within the

exception under paragraph 10 of Circular No.3 of 2018, it

would be open to the Income Tax Department to seek

revival of the appeal.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J

21.09.2022 vs