What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of ₹50 lacs. Since the appeal did not fall under any exceptions to the circular, it was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The assessee pointed out that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT given the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

DCIT vs Radha Madhav Investments Pvt. Ltd | ITAT Mumbai 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Vidhyadhar

For Respondent: Ms. Snehal Bamne

Hearing: 18.03.2021

O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, VP: This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) in appeal no. CIT(A)-8/IT- 167/17-18 vide order dated 28.03.2019. The assessment was framed by the DCIT, Circle- 3(3)(1), Mumbai u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2014-15 vide his order dated 21.12.2017.

At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the tax effect in this appeal is Rs.44,19,341/-, which is below the tax effect as prescribed vide CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 vide F.No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) dated 08.08.2019, wherein the monetary limit for filing of appeal before ITAT is enhanced to ₹50 lacs. We noted that vide this circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 an amendment was made to CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 vide F.No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt) increasing

(AY:2015-16) Dy. CIT vs. M/s. Radha Madhav Investments Pvt. Ltd. the monetary limit for filing of appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal i.e. ₹ 50 lacs in each of the case from the monetary limit of ₹20 lacs. We noted that earlier Circular No. 3 of 2018 was made applicable to pending appeals also and this clause of the circular remains unchanged even after the amendment. Admittedly, in this case tax effect is below prescribed limit of ₹ 50 lacs for filing of appeal before the Tribunal.

When this was confronted to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, he could not point out that this appeal falls under any of the exception as provided in Circular No. 3 of 2018, which are applicable to the present circular no. 17/2019. Admittedly, the tax effect in this appeal of Revenue is much below the prescribed limit of filing appeal before the Tribunal i.e. ₹ 50 lacs as per CBDT circular No. 17 of 2019. In view of the above, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn in view of Circular No. 17 of 2019. This appeal of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

In the Result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.03.2021.

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RADHA MADHAV INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments