What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue's counsel could not establish any exceptions to the circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Revenue preferred an appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2010-11. The tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT given the low tax effect, in light of the prevailing CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals.

ACIT vs M/S.N.Jp Trading Company | ITAT Mumbai 2020

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

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Mari Jain, A.R

For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, D.R

Hearing: 24.09.2020Pronounced: 25.09.2020

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 12.06.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2010-11.

At the outset, it is noticed that the CBDT recently has 2. amended the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 vide Circular No. 17/2019, F.No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) dated 08.08.2019 increasing the limit for filing of appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal i.e. ₹ 50 lacs in each of the case. We noted that earlier Circular No. 3 of 2018 was made applicable to pending appeals also and this clause of the circular remains

2 M/s. N.J.P Trading Company unchanged even after the amendment. Admittedly, in this case tax effect is below prescribed limit for filing of appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue i.e. ₹ 50 lacs.

When this was confronted to the learned Sr. Departmental 3. Representative, he could not point out that this appeal falls under any of the exception as provided in Circular No. 17 of 2019. Admittedly, the tax effect in this appeal of Revenue is much below the prescribed limit of filing appeal before the Tribunal i.e. ₹ 50 lacs as per CBDT circular No. 17 of 2019. In view of the above, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn in view of Circular No. 17 of 2019.

Now, before us, the learned CIT Departmental 4. Representative only requested that he want to verify whether this appeal falls under any of the explanation provided in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Here, we are of giving liberty to Revenue that in case, after passing of the order it comes to the notice of the Revenue that this appeal does not falls under any explanation of the CBDT by 3/18, the AO can move for recalling of the order within the prescribed time limit under section 254 of the Act. Hence, this appeal is dismissed as low tax effect covered by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.09.2020.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.N.JP TRADING COMPANY, 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