ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly v. M/s Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd.
Income Tax Appeal No. 297 of 2017 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
Appeal dismissed as not maintainable on the recorded low-tax-effect ground under Circular No.3/2018.
Division Bench · Bharati Sapru · Dinesh Kumar Singh
1. Facts of the case
Revenue counsel Shri Praveen Kumar stated that the tax effect was below Rs.20,00,000. Respondent counsel Shri Ashish Bansal was also heard. The exact tax effect was not quantified. The supplied order states no assessment year or underlying assessment issue.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court cited CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11 July 2018 and concluded the appeal on the recorded monetary-limit ground. It did not analyse the assessment merits or discuss the circular’s exceptions. The order’s reference to Rs.20 lakh and its printed file-number string are preserved as source wording; they are not adopted as the High Court threshold in the official circular.
3. Judicial decision
The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable on the stated low-tax-effect basis.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue’s appeal ended by procedural dismissal. The supplied order neither resolves a substantive tax question nor establishes that the underlying assessment position is correct on its merits.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
The official Circular No.3/2018, paragraph 3 (p.1), set Rs.50 lakh for High Court appeals and Rs.20 lakh for ITAT appeals. The order records counsel’s below-Rs.20-lakh statement and prints a different file-number string; do not silently correct the primary order or treat Rs.20 lakh as the general High Court limit. This note reports the particular dismissal, not current monetary-limit law.
Source and verification
Complete supplied one-page order read and visually inspected. Original SHA-256 independently reverified; full text matched the supplied review packet. No assessment year or PAN is stated. No later-proceedings or current-law clearance is claimed.
Source SHA-256: a2041d1ea2be611f08c0379293e15af6477d4d260f979170a1af3c7fe0144bcd
Only provisions expressly identified in this order are recorded. No substantive tax merits or current statutory equivalence is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-18. Later proceedings, compliance and current precedential treatment have not been comprehensively verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from an identified primary report. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.