DCIT 12(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. EBAY INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3714/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 December 2019AY 2010-114 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed due to lack of merit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The assessee filed a cross-objection against the penalty order. The tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the low tax effect, and whether the assessee's cross-objection against the penalty order has merit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K”, BENCH

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri NItesh Joshi & Ms. Kirti Talreja
For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan (CIT-DR) &, Ms. Nilu Jaggi (DR), Shri NItesh Joshi & Ms. Kirti Talreja
Hearing: 09/12/2019Pronounced: 13/12/2019

Revenue by Shri Anand Mohan (CIT-DR) & Ms. Nilu Jaggi (DR) Assessee by Shri NItesh Joshi & Ms. Kirti Talreja (ARs) Date of Hearing 09/12/2019 Date of Pronouncement 13/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. The appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-56, Mumbai

CO 259/Mum/2017 DCIT Vs M/s Mintkart India P Ltd. dated 25/02/2016 for the A.Y. 2010-11 in the matter of imposition of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).

2.

At the outset, the ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the penalty so deleted by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of TP adjustment so made in the quantum appeal does not exceed Rs. 50.00 lacs, therefore, in view of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, the appeal filed by the revenue deserves to be dismissed.

3.

The ld DR has fairly agreed that the tax effect in the appeal filed by the revenue is less than Rs. 50.00 lacs.

4.

We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that the tax effect in this appeal is not exceeding the monetary limit as revised by the CBDT vide Circular dated 08.08.2019 for the purpose of filing of appeal by the department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal from Rs. 20,00,000/- to Rs. 50,00,000/-. For ready reference, we reproduce the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 as under:-

Further Enhancement of Monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and SLPs/appeals before Supreme Court - Amendment to Circular 3 of 2018 - Measures for reducing litigation.

Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July 2018 has been replaced by Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August 2019 to enhance Monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and SLPs/appeals before Supreme Court for reducing litigation.

CO 259/Mum/2017 DCIT Vs M/s Mintkart India P Ltd. Appeals/SLPs in Income- Monetary Limit Monetary Limit tax matters (Rs.) (previous (Rs.) limit) (Revised Limit) Before Appellate Tribunal 20,00,000 50,00,000 Before High Court 50,00,000 1,00,00,000 Before Supreme Court 1,00,00,000 2,00,00,000 • The Assessing Officer shall calculate the tax effect separately for every assessment year in respect of the disputed issues in the case of every assessee. If, in the case of an assessee, the disputed issues arise in more than one assessment year, appeal can be filed in respect of such assessment year or years in which the tax effect in respect of the disputed issues exceeds the monetary limit. No appeal shall be filed in respect of an assessment year or years in which the tax effect is less than the monetary limit. • Further, even in the case of composite order of any High Court or appellate authority which involves more than one assessment year and common issues in more than one assessment year, no appeal shall be filed in respect of an assessment year or years in which the tax effect is less than the monetary limit. • In case where a composite order/ judgment involves more than one assessee, each assessee shall be dealt with separately.”

5.

It is also relevant to mention here that this appeal is not covered by any of the exceptions mentioned in the said circular so as to not dismissing the same on the ground of low tax effect. Accordingly, the appeal of the department is not maintainable being monetary limit is less than/not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/-.

6.

With regard to the C.O. filed by the assessee, it was alleged that the penalty order passed by the A.O. U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law due to non-application of mind which is evident from the notice U/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

CO 259/Mum/2017 DCIT Vs M/s Mintkart India P Ltd. 7. We have gone through the orders of the authorities below, however, nothing was placed before the Bench so as to persuade us to support the ground taken in cross objection. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the C.O. so filed by the assessee.

8.

In the result, both i.e. appeal of the revenue and C.O. of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13th December, 2019.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →