What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the appeal was below the limit fixed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT. The Departmental Representative could not dispute this fact or point to any exceptions.

The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which allowed the assessee's appeal. The assessee argued that the tax effect of the appeal was below the threshold limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the revenue's appeal was maintainable before the ITAT given that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.

DCIT vs D.V.Builders & Developers Pvt… | ITAT Mumbai 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah

For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ansari

Hearing: 15.10.2020Pronounced: 19.10.2020

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the revenue is directed against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] dated 19.12.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2014-15.

The grounds of appeal read as under :

1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the fact that assessee company has followed the mercantile system of accounting and book the expenses on payment basis which is contradict the accounting policy.

2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.ClT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has done in depth scrutiny thereafter addition was made on the basis of that such expenses is not related to business activity. 3. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the fact that AO has correctly apportioned the depreciation between different projects of the assessee.

2 M/s. D.V. Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd.

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

At the outset Ld counsel of the assessee submitted 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 8/8 2019 for filing appeal before the ITAT. For this he submitted following computation :-

Ground Description Disallowance in Relief granted the assessment by learned order Amount CIT(A)-20 (Rs.) (Rs.) Ground No. 1 Labour charges 109,32,534 80,16,086 disallowed Ground No. 2 Compensation 56,91,750 39,33,675 disallowed Ground No. 3 Depreciation 23,17,965 23,17,965 disallowed Ground No. 4 Service tax disallowed 7,05,540 7,05,540 Aggregate total 196,47,789 149,73,226

Addition contested by revenue Tax effect @ 33.99% in second appeal 109,32,534 37,15,968 23,17,965 7,64,928 132,50,499 44,80,897

Tax effect as income tax thereon @ 33.99% Hence, Ld counsel submitted that this appeal by the revenue is not maintainable.

Per contra learned Departmental Representative 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, this appeal by the revenue is liable to be dismissed in limine.

3 M/s. D.V. Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed as such.

Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules on 19.9.2020.

DCIT - 12(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. D.V.BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Latest GST High Court judgments