INCOME TAX OFFICER 9(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DISCOVERY PROPERTIES & HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5545/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 February 2020AY 2013-143 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 appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect of the disputed additions was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order granting relief to the assessee. The appeal contested additions made under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue's appeal is maintainable considering the low tax effect of the disputed additions as per CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri Paul Almeida- Ld. AR
For Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak-Ld.DR

सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 11/02/2020 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 11/02/2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2013-14 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-16/ITO-9(3)(1)/IT-116/2017-18 order dated 31/07/2018 qua grant of relief u/s 2(22)(e) for Rs.89.77 Lacs.

2 M/s. Discovery Properties & Hotels Private Ltd. Assessment Year :2013-14 2. The learned Authorized Representative for assessee (AR), at the outset, drew attention to the fact that the appeal is not maintainable since the tax effect of quantum additions being contested by the revenue is less than monetary limit of Rs.50 Lacs as prescribed by CBDT in its recently issued Circular No.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 [F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-TTJ(Pt.) Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue] and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The Ld. DR could not point out any exception and also could not controvert the fact that the tax effect of quantum addition was less than Rs.50 Lacs.

3.

Upon perusal of case records, prima facie, it appears that the tax effect of quantum additions under dispute is less than prescribed limit of Rs.50 Lacs and the same is covered by recently issued low tax effect Circular No.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes [CBDT]. This recent circular further enhances the monetary limit fixed in earlier Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11/07/2018 issued by CBDT as amended on 20/08/2018. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4.

At the same time, a liberty is given to revenue to seek recall of the appeal, if at a later stage, it is found that the matter is covered by any exceptions provided in any of the circular or in case the tax effect as agitated by revenue exceeds the prescribed monetary limit.

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →