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 prescribed monetary limit. The Departmental Representative could not dispute this fact or point to any exceptions.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2007-08. The appeal was filed despite the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT.

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 CBDT's prescribed monetary limit.

DCIT vs Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. | ITAT Mumbai 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi

For Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Srivastava

Hearing: 02.03.2021Pronounced: 02.03.2021

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

This appeal by the revenue is directed against order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] dated 26.3.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2007-08.

The grounds of appeal

read as under :- 1. "Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the scope of Section 153A is limited to assessing only search related income, thereby denying Revenue the opportunity of taxing other escaped income, that comes to the notice of the AO?

2. "Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 59,89,042/- on account of depreciation on Kandivali Factory premises when the said premises along with all its fixtures is being used by agencies to whom job work is outsourced by the assessee.?

3. "Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified treating receipts from job contractors amounting to Rs. 24,000/- as business income instead of income from House Property considering the said premises at Kandivali along with all its fixtures have been leased to the outsourcing agents (job contractors)?"

2 M/s. Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd.

4. "Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that the Department is in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue in the case of M/s JSW Energy Ltd. for the A.Y. 2006-07? " 5. "Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 24,07,457/- on account of bogus purchases and restricting the disallowance to 5% ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. DCIT in which upto 100% of bogus purchases were disallowed and in which SLP of the assessee is dismissed?"

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 ITAT. Hence this appeal by the revenue is not maintainable.

Learned Departmental Representative 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.

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.

Pronounced in the open court on 2.3.2021.

DCIT CENT. CIR. 8(3) ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. - 46, MUMBAI vs. ROSY BLUE (INDIA) 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