ITO 21(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. NEW EGG CENTRE, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3824/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 September 2019AY 2002-034 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 appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeals were dismissed based on the CBDT circular.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the deletion of quantum additions and penalty by the first appellate authority. The tax effect of these additions and penalty was below the monetary threshold prescribed by the CBDT.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals filed by the revenue are maintainable given the tax effect is below the monetary threshold set by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld. DR
Hearing: 26/09/2019Pronounced: 26/09/2019

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.3824/Mum/2011
I.T.A. No.3825/Mum/2011

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

-25/Mum/2011 M/s. New Egg Centre Assessment Year-2002-03 2. The learned Authorized Representative for assessee, at the outset, drew our attention to the fact that the tax effect of the quantum additions as well as quantum of penalty being contested by the revenue is below the threshold monetary limit of Rs.50 Lacs as prescribed by Central Board of Direct Taxes 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 appeals are not maintainable. 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. The Ld. Departmental Representative is unable to point out any exceptions in the appeal as provided in para-10 of Circular no. 3 of 2018 dated 11/07/2018. The perusal of grounds of appeal as well as quantum order, prima facie, establishes that the tax effect of quantum addition / penalty being contested by the revenue is below Rs.50 Lacs.

3. We have gone through the circular and find that the tax effect in both the appeals is below prescribed limit of Rs.50 Lacs and the assessee stood benefitted by the above circular issued by CBDT wherein the minimum monetary limit for filing the appeals before various appellate authorities have been fixed as under: - S. No. Appeals/ SLPs in Income-tax Monetary Limit (Rs.) matters 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 50.00,000 2 Before High Court 1,00.00,000 3 Before Supreme Court 2,00.00,000 -25/Mum/2011 M/s. New Egg Centre Assessment Year-2002-03 The aforesaid limits, as per para 13 of the Circular no. 3 of 2018 dated 11/07/2018, applies to the pending appeals also. In view of the admitted position, we dismiss both the appeals filed by the revenue.

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

5. Resultantly, both the appeals stand dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th September,2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated : 26/09/2019 Sr.PS:-Jaisy Varghese आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. -25/Mum/2011 M/s. New Egg Centre Assessment Year-2002-03

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →