THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. MIRZA NAHEIM ASLAM, RAJOURI.

PDF · subscribers
ITA 378/ASR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 October 2018AY 2010-112 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit specified by Section 268A of the Income Tax Act and relevant CBDT instructions.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order by the CIT(A) which reduced the assessed income. The tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT instructions for appeals before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (‘SMC’

Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA

Hearing: 22.10.2018Pronounced: 22.10.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (‘SMC’) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 378(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mirza Naheim Aslam, Prop. Mirza Ward-2(2), Jammu Trading Co., r/o Dhanour, Rajouri [PAN: APOPA 9723K]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Respondent by: None Date of Hearing: 22.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 22.10.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Revenue directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu (‘CIT(A)' for short) dated 28.03.2016, allowing the assessee’s appeal contesting his assessment under section 143(3)/r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 14.03.2014 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11.

2.

At the outset, it was observed by the Bench that the tax effect of the instant appeal is below Rs. 20 lacs, i.e., the threshold monetary limit applicable for the Revenue’s appeals before the Tribunal u/s. 268A of the Act as per the latest instruction, i.e., No. 3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, by the CBDT, so that it is not maintainable. With reference to the grounds of appeal assumed before the tribunal as well as the assessment order, assessing the total income at Rs. 49.94 lacs, it was

2 ITA No. 378/Asr/2016 (AY 2010-11) ITO v. Mirza Naheim Aslam confirmed by the Bench that the tax-effect is below rupees twenty lakhs; the ld. CIT(A) reducing the income estimate from 8% to 2%, allowing thus a relief of Rs. 37.45 lacs.

3.

Section 268A of the Act provides that an appellate authority, including the Appellate Tribunal, shall have regard to the instructions, directions, orders, etc. issued by the Board from time to time fixing monetary limits for the purpose of regulating the filing of appeals by the Revenue before the different appellate authorities, and which shall, while deciding those appeals, have regard to the said limits. The monetary limit fixed per the latest instruction supra for the appeals before the tribunal is Rs. 20 lacs.

4.

Under the circumstances, therefore, the instant appeal, being covered by section 268A read with the applicable instruction cited supra, which is to apply for pending appeals as well, is not maintainable. The Revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine as not maintainable. We decide accordingly.

5.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the open court on October 22, 2018 Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) Accountant Member Date: 22.10.2018 /GP/Sr. Ps. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) Mirza Naheim Aslam, Prop. Mirza Trading Co., R/o Dhanour, Rajouri (2) The ITO, Ward-2(2), Jammu (3) The CIT(Appeals), Jammu (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →