ACIT 26(1), MUMBAI vs. SHANKARAN B NAIR, NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3039/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 March 2021AY 2011-123 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 limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting a disallowance under Section 54 and an addition on account of undisclosed capital gain. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the assessee, Shankaran B. Nair.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa
Hearing: 08.03.2021Pronounced: 09.03.2021

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :-

This appeal by the revenue is directed against order of learned CIT-A dated 16.1.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12.

2.

The grounds of appeal read as under :- i. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.67,66,865/- made u/s 54 of the IT Act, holding that the assessee is entitled for claiming deduction u/s 54 proportionately in respect of the payments towards purchase of new property made within the prescribed time limit." ii) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that neither the date of purchase agreement nor the date of construction agreement (of the new house property) was within the period of one year before or two years after the date of transfer of house property specified in section 54(1) of the IT Act, 1961." iii) “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had also not taken the possession of the new flat within the stipulated period and that the deduction u/s. 54 cannot be granted even on proportionate basis as the assessee had not fulfilled the mandatory condition prescribed for claiming this deduction."

2 Shankaran B. Nair iv) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.7,00,000/- made on account of undisclosed capital gain ignoring that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus of explaining the nature and source of this sum received by him." v) "The appellant prays that the order of the CIT (A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored."

3.

At the outset it is noted that that the tax effect in this case is below the limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- fixed by CBDT vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8/8/2019 for filing appeal before the 1TAT. Hence this appeal by the revenue is not maintainable.

4.

Ld DR could not dispute that the tax effect is below the said limit. He could not point out that the appeal falls in any of the exceptions carved in said circular.

5.

Upon careful consideration we find that, as the tax effect is below the limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT, this appeal by the revenue is liable to be dismissed in limine. The revenue will have liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect is found to be beyond the above limit. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed as such.

6.

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on 9.3.2021.

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →