ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S.PRINT ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5240/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 March 2021AY 2005-063 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 prescribed monetary limit. The Revenue could not demonstrate any exception to the CBDT circular.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2005-06, challenging the quashing of reopening proceedings and the disallowance of deduction. The tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT appeal is maintainable when the tax effect is below the CBDT prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI C.N. PRASAD

For Appellant: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi
Hearing: 15/02/2021Pronounced: 01/03/2021

O R D E R PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM :

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 13, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) dated 11.06.2019 and pertains to Assessment Year 2005-06.

2.

The grounds of appeal read as under :

“1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in quashing the reopening proceedings u/s 147 by stating that there was no failure on the part of the assessee and therefore the assessment cannot be reopened beyond 4 years.

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in quashing the reopening proceedings without appreciating the fact that the excess deduction claimed u/s 80IB of Rs.22,04,200/- has escaped assessment.

M/s. Print Electronics Equipments Pvt. Ltd. 3. Without prejudice to the Ground No. 1 the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not appreciating the fact that the assessee had credited an amount of Rs.73,52,732/- as Annual Maintenance Charges not derived from the manufacturing activity in the Profit & Loss Account and claimed deduction u/s 80IB of Rs.26,36,215/- instead of Rs.4,32,115/-.

4. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”

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, the appeal by the Revenue is not maintainable.

4.

The 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 the 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. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed as such.

6.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules on 1st March, 2021.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →