What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the Departmental Representative's submission that the tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(A) was below Rs. 50 lacs, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which partly allowed the assessee's appeal against the assessment order. The CIT(A) had deleted an addition of Rs. 98,49,235/- on account of unutilized CENVAT receivable.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.

DCIT vs Rama Newsprint and Papers Limited | ITAT Mumbai 2019

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

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

For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)

Hearing: 03/09/2019Pronounced: 03/09/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T.-3(3)(1), M/s Rama Newsprint & Papers Room No. 609, 6th Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12th Floor, Nariman Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 227, V.K. Shah Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 PAN: AAACR2499H (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri D.G. Pansari (DR) Assessee by : None Date of Hearing: 03/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 03/09/2019 O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2010-11, 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’).

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

1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 98,49,235/- on account of unutilized cenvat receivable when the Assessee has not produced Assessment Year: 2010-11 any evidences during assessment proceedings to substantiate the claim? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 98,49,235/- on account of unutilzed cenvat receivable by allowing additional evidences to be filed by way of Cenvat Ledger A/c during appellate proceedings is contravention of Rule 46A (1) of I.T. Rules, 1962 since the Assessee had not filed the same before the AO in Assessment proceedings despite several opportunities being given?

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was correct in accepting the additional evidence and adjudicating on the basis of the document filed when the same should have been remanded back to the AO for verification in contradiction to Rule 46A(3) of I.T. Rules 1962 before allowing relief?

This case was fixed for today for final hearing. However, when the case was called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondent/assessee. The Ld. Departmental Representative fairly (DR) pointed out that the tax effect of the relief granted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the present case 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 present appeal is not maintainable.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAMA NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS LIMITED, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments