ITO 9(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. FUSION JEWELLERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY P.LTD, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates that departmental appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below INR 50,00,000. The tax effect in this case was below the specified limit.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A) which had partly allowed the Assessee's appeal. The Assessee's returned income was INR 9,75,015, and the Assessing Officer assessed it at INR 16,54,200.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, K BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer-9(3)(3), Mumbai, Room No. 471, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 …………… Appellant M/s Fusion Jewellery Mfg. Private Vs Limited Unit No. 32, SFD-1, Seepz + SeepzSez, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400096 [PAN: AAAFC7704R] Respondent ……………. Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Fenil Bhatt For the Respondent/Department : Dr. Yogesh Kamat Date : 20.02.2023 Conclusion of hearing : 26.04.2023 Pronouncement of order
O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: By way of the present appeal the Revenue has challenged the order, 1. dated 30/07/2015, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2010-11, whereby the CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 10/04/2014, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Ld. Authorised 2. Representative for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that the tax effect in the said appeal is less than INR 50,00,000/- and therefore, in (AY 2010-11) view of Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) the appeal be dismissed.
We have perused the material on record and find that the Assessing 3. Officer has assessed income of the Assessee at INR 16,54,200/- vide order dated 10/04/2014 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Act as against returned income of INR.9,75,015/-. According to the Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019, issued by the CBDT, departmental appeals are not be filed before the Tribunal in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the specified monetary limits of INR 50,00,000/-. The tax effect in the present appeal is below the aforesaid specified monetary limit and therefore, the present appeal is dismissed as ‘withdrawn/not pressed’ in terms of the abovesaid circular with the liberty to the Revenue to file Miscellaneous Application seeking recall the present order within time limit prescribed in the Act in case on re-verification the Revenue comes to a conclusion that the tax effect is higher than the above- said specified monetary limit, or the appeal falls within the exception clauses contained in Circular No.3/2018, dated 11-7-2018 as amended by the letter [F.No.279/ Misc.142/2007-ITJ (PT)], dated 20- 8-2018.
In result, the present appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed as 4. withdrawn/not pressed.
Order pronounced on 26.04.2023.
More judgments on Section 144C(3)
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Neha Hiranand Motwani, Nashik vs ITO International Tax, NashikITA 1570/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- ACIT-Circle 6(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7767/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-Circle6(1)(1) Mumbai., Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7766/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Atc Tires Private Limited, Mumbai vs The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 6468/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026