ITO - 21(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MUMTAZ JAFAR PARDAWALA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5103/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 December 2019AY 2012-133 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 noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable and the Revenue was allowed to withdraw it.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13. The Departmental Representative submitted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of ₹50 lakh as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circular.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEYAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

For Appellant: Shri Amti Bothra
For Respondent: Smt. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak, Shri Amti Bothra

Date of Hearing – 04.12.2019 Date of Order – 19.12.2019

O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M.

The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated 9th May 2016, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–33, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2012–13.

2.

At the outset, Smt. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak, the learned Departmental Representative submitted, the tax effect on the amount disputed by the Revenue in the concerned appeal is below the revised

2 Mrs. Mumtaz Jafar Pardawala monetary limit of ` 50 lakh as per CBDT Circular no.17/2019, dated 8th August 2019. Further, she submitted, the appeal is not protected by any of the exceptions provided in the aforesaid Circular. In this context, the learned Departmental Representative furnished a copy of the letter dated 22nd November 2019, issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward–22(2)(6), Mumbai, seeking withdrawal of the appeal.

3.

The learned Authorised Representative agreed with the aforesaid submissions of the learned Departmental Representative.

4.

Having considered rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as copy of the letter of the Assessing Officer, as referred to above, we are of the view that the tax effect on the amount disputed by the Revenue in the present appeal is below the monetary limit of ` 50 lakh, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. In view of the aforesaid, we allow withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue.

5.

In the result, appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.12.2019

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →