What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the CBDT's revised monetary limit. However, the Revenue was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if exceptions applied.

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order partly allowing the assessee's appeal. The assessee argued that the tax effect of the relief granted was below the revised monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT, making the appeal not maintainable.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT based on the tax effect, considering the CBDT's revised monetary limits for filing appeals.

DCIT vs M/S Veekaylal Investment Company… | ITAT Mumbai 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Satish R Mody (AR)

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri (CIT DR), Shri Satish R Mody (AR)

Hearing: 16/03/2020Pronounced: 18/03/2020

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2011-12, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective grounds:-

1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in deleting the disallowance of management fees amounting to Rs. 1,49,83,609/- without appreciating that the assessee has not submitted any evidence to prove that V.K. Lalco Pvt. Ltd. has actually rendered services for which the payment has been made and the MOU appears to be a afterthought of the assessee, with specific motive of reducing the profits by Assessment Year: 2014-15 charging certain expenses against the said transaction of sale of property? 2. The appellant prays that the order of CIT (A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored.”

At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the respondent/assessee pointed out that the tax effect of the relief granted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is below Rs. 50 lacs and as per Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the CBDT has revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT from the existing limit of Rs. 20 lacs to Rs. 50 lacs. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the Ld. counsel submitted that this appeal is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The Ld. counsel furnished calculation sheet, as per which, the tax effect in this case is Rs. 48,61,432/- including surcharge and education cess.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) admitted that this appeal is not maintainable in light of the aforesaid Circular issued by the CBDT, however, submitted that the department may be given liberty to file miscellaneous application in case it is found that the case falls under any of the exceptions provided in the Circular or otherwise maintainable.

We have gone through the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the grounds of appeals. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs. 50 lacs. Accordingly, we dismiss the aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable/withdrawn. However, in case, it is found that the case falls under any of the exceptions provided in the Circular or otherwise maintainable, then the revenue is at liberty to file miscellaneous application for recalling the order of the Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2014-2015 is dismissed.

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Order pronounced in the open court on 18th March, 2020.

DCIT-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VEEKAYLAL INVESTMENT COMPANY PVT. 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