ITO 13(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SMT MAYA BHARAT PATEL, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4231/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 August 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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

What were the facts?

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

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the ITAT due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT. The grounds of appeal also related to the cost of acquisition for capital gains and eligibility for deduction under Section 54.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Shah (AR)
For Respondent: Shri J. Saravanan (CIT DR), Shri Jayant Shah (AR)
Hearing: 29/08/2019Pronounced: 29/08/2019

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2013-14, 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’).

2.

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

1.

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the cost of acquisition of Rs. 22,16,627/- of the purpose of computation of Capital Gain as against the cost of acquisition of Rs. 12,21,170/- adopted by the Assessing Officer and thereby allowing the index cost of acquisition of Rs. 53,54,169/- offered by the assessee. Assessment Year: 2013-14

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to explain the reason for payment of additional stamp duty after 12 years and failed to produce by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in directing the assessing officer to allow the deduction u/s 54 amounting to Rs. 1,10,07,532/-. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to prove the investment in a new construction of flat was made within the statutory time limit of 3 years i.e. 17.07.2015 from the date of sale of original asset on 18.07.2012. Further, Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the facts that the assessee is not eligible to get exemption u/s 54 since the assessee amended its preference of purchase of flat from flat No. C1001 to Flat B 902 in the year 2015 i.e. after the expiry of time limit of 2 years as specified u/s 54 of the I.T. Act.”

3.

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.

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →