What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not covered by the exceptions to the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The assessee's representative argued that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded this point.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue meets the monetary limit criteria for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT circulars.

DCIT vs Shamrock Pharmachemi P. Ltd. | ITAT Mumbai 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.R

For Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R, Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.R

Hearing: 15/10/2020Pronounced: 15/10/2020

ORDER

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM

The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, [for short „CIT(A)‟], Mumbai, dated 27.11.2017, which in turns arises from the assessment order passed by the A.O under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (for short „Act‟), dated 16.03.2015.

Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 has amended Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 for further enhancement of monetary limit for filing of appeals by the Department before the ITAT, High Courts and SLPs/Appeals before Supreme Court as measures for reducing litigation.

CBDT vide Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 has specified that appeals shall not be filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs.20,00,000/-. For this purpose, „tax effect‟ means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of issues against which appeal is intended to be filed.

2 DCIT-8(2)(1) Vs. M/s Shamrock Pharmachemi Pvt. Ld.

Further, „tax effect‟ shall be taxes including applicable surcharge and cess. However, the tax will not include any interest thereon, except where chargeability of interest itself is in dispute. In case the chargeability of interest is the issue under dispute, the amount of interest shall be the „tax effect‟. In cases where returned loss is reduced or assessed as income, the „tax effect‟ would include notional tax on disputed additions. In case of penalty order, the „tax effect‟ will mean quantum of penalty deleted or reduced in the order to be appealed against.

At para 13 of the above Circular, it has been mentioned that:

“13. This Circular will apply to SLPs/appeals/cross objection/references to be filed henceforth in SC/HCs/Tribunal and it shall also apply retrospectively to pending SLPs/appeals/cross objections/references. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed.”

As a step towards further management of litigation, CBDT vide Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019 has fixed the monetary limit for filing of appeals before ITAT at Rs.50,00,000/-.

In the instant appeal filed by the Department, it was averred by the ld. A.R that the „tax effect‟ therein involved was below the monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/-. The said fact was brought to the notice of the ld. Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) who did not controvert the same. In fact, on a specific query by the bench it was fairly admitted by the ld. D.R that the present appeal was not covered by the exceptions carved out in the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019.

With the above observations the appeal involving a „tax effect‟ of less than Rs.50,00,000/- is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.10.2020

DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P. 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