DCIT 9(2) (1), MUMBAI vs. BANCHMARK COMPUTER SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6016/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 March 2021AY 2010-113 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 filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against a penalty order. The appeal was filed despite a CBDT circular setting monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in the present appeal was below the prescribed limit.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed by the Revenue before the ITAT is maintainable when the tax effect is below the monetary limit stipulated by the CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen, Sr.D.R
Hearing: 24/03/2021Pronounced: 24/03/2021

ORDER

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [for short „CIT(A)‟], dated 14.06.2019, which in turn arises from the penalty imposed by the A.O under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (for short „Act‟), dated 13.02.2018.

2.

Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 has amended Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 for further enhancement of monetary limit for filing of appeals by the Department before the ITAT, High Courts and SLPs/Appeals before Supreme Court as measures for reducing litigation.

3.

CBDT vide Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 has specified that appeals shall not be filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs.20,00,000/-. For this purpose, „tax effect‟ means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of issues against which appeal is intended to be filed. Further, „tax effect‟ shall be taxes including applicable surcharge and cess. However, the tax will not include any interest thereon, except where chargeability of interest itself is in dispute. In case the chargeability of interest is the issue under dispute, the amount of interest shall be the „tax effect‟. In cases where returned loss is reduced or assessed as income, the „tax effect‟ would include notional tax on disputed additions. In case of penalty order, the „tax effect‟ will mean quantum of penalty deleted or reduced in the order to be appealed against.

At para 13 of the above Circular, it has been mentioned that:

“13. This Circular will apply to SLPs/appeals/cross objection/references to be filed henceforth in SC/HCs/Tribunal and it shall also apply retrospectively to pending SLPs/appeals/cross objections/references. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed.”

4.

As a step towards further management of litigation, CBDT vide Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019 has fixed the monetary limit for filing of appeals before ITAT at Rs.50,00,000/-.

5.

In the instant appeal filed by the Department, the „tax effect‟ therein involved is below the monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/-. The said fact was brought to the notice of the ld. Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) who did not controvert the same.

6.

With the above observations the appeal involving a „tax effect‟ of less than Rs.50,00,000/- is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.03.2021 Sd/- Sd/- (M. Balaganesh) (Ravish Sood) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 24.03.2021 Rohit, P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent.

3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//

(Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →