What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which restricted the addition on account of bogus purchases. The tax effect in the appeal was below the 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 low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars.

ITO vs Goyam Jewels | ITAT Mumbai 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri T. S. Khalsa

Pronounced: 01.03.2021

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 09.07.2018 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2008-09.

The grounds of appeal read as under:

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the net addition on account of bogus purchases to the extent of 3% when in fact the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the said purchases? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N K Protein Ltd. dated 16.01.2017, which is on the similar issue of bogus purchases and when the apex court order was already the law of the land when the ld. CIT(A) has pronounced its order on 16.07.2018? 3. The appellant prays that the order of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored.

(AssessmentYear: 2008-09) 3. At the outset, it is noted 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 08.08.2019 for filing appeal before the ITAT. Hence, this appeal by the revenue is not maintainable.

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. However, he sought liberty for restoration of the appeal if the tax effect is found to be more than the limit prescribed.

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.

As regards the liberty saught by the Ld DR the same is quite natural and no separate order for that is required.

Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed as such. Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962, by placing the details on the notice board on 01.03.2021

ITO 19 (1)(3), MUMBAI vs. GOYAM JEWELS, 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