ITO 9(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. EPIC ENERGY LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3152/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 November 2020AY 2015-162 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 Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT. The Assessing Officer's arguments did not fall under any exceptions to the circular.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding additional depreciation. The assessee claimed additional depreciation for assets purchased from a foreign country and installed abroad.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT due to insufficient tax effect. The secondary issues involved the deletion of additional depreciation and procedural aspects of evidence admission by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned in the operative part of the judgment, but related to depreciation and appellate procedures.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar P. Menon

Hearing: 02.11.2020Pronounced: 05.11.2020

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

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] dated 27.2.2019 and pertains to A.Y. 2015-16.

The grounds of appeal

read as under :- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in:

1. Deleting the addition of Rs.l,14,6O,684/- rightly made by the Assessing Officer on account of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee for purchase of assets from foreign country and which were installed at "ALPHARETTA", USA. 2.Allowing the assessee to produce any evidence before him which is in violation of Rule 46A(1) of the I. T.Rules 1962. 3.Admitting the evidences produced by the assessee without recording the reasons in writing for doing so which is in violation of Rule 46A(2) of the I. T. Rules 1962.

2 M/s. Epic Energy Ltd.

4.Admitting the evidences produced by the assessee without giving reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer to rebut the said, which is in violation of Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962.”

At the outset, it is observed that the tax effect in this case is below Rs. 50,00,000 fixed by CBDT vide Circular No. 17/2019 Dt 8/8/2019 for filing appeal before the ITAT. Hence this appeal by the revenue is not maintainable. Per contra 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.

Upon careful consideration we find that, as the tax effect is below the limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT. Hence this appeal by the revenue is liable to be dismissed in limine.

Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed as such.

Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules by placing the result on notice board on 05.11.2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →