What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable, citing the CBDT circular that enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue could file a miscellaneous application if the issue fell under the exceptions provided in the circular.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 50 lacs, which was the enhanced monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect is below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals before the Tribunal.

ITO vs Shri Kaushik C Ghelani | ITAT Mumbai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri G Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh-(DR)

O R D E R Per G MANJUNATHA, AM :

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against order of the CIT(A)- 25, Mumbai dated 23/03/2018 and it pertains to AY 2009-10.

None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused materials available on record. During course of hearing, ld. DR for the revenue submitted that tax effect involved in this appeal filed by the revenue is less than Rs. 50 lacs and in view of latest CBDT circular

2 ITA 3975/Mum/2018 No.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019, appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and needs to be dismissed, however, he further argued that, the issue involved in this appeal is appears to be covered by exception provided under clause (e) of subsequent circular and therefore, if required the revenue shall be allowed to file miscellaneous application to relcall the order. We, find that, the CBDT, recently had issued a circular no. 3/2018 dated 11-7-2018, superseding its earlier circular no. 21/2015 and enhanced monetary limit for filing appeal before various appellate authorities and accordingly, enhanced monetary limit to Rs. 20,00,000/- for filing appeal before the Tribunal. Further, the board has issued one more circular vide ciruclar no.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 and enhanced monetary limit for filing appeal before appellate Tribunal to Rs. 50,00,000/-. Further, in the said circular, the CBDT had instructed its officer’s to file application for withdrawal of appeal already filed or not to pursue pending appeals. We, therefore, by taking into account the CBDT circular No. 3/2018 dated 11-7-2018 and circular no.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 and also considering the fact that tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than the amount of monetary limit fixed by the CBDT for not filing appeal, dismissed appeal filed by the revenue as not maintainable. We, further noted that the Co- ordinate bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad ‘A’ Bench in ITA.No.

3 ITA 3975/Mum/2018 1398/Ahd/2004, vide order dated 14/08/2019 at passed detailed order considering the new circular issued by the CBDT held that except amendment to para 3 of the circular No.3/2018 dated 11/07/2018, all other portions of the circular No.03/2018 (supra) have remain intact, therefore, this circular is applicable even for pending appeals and accordingly, rejected the arguments of the revenue that the effect of the circular shall come into force from the date of issue of this circular.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also taken note of circular issued by the CBDT including circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019, and also by following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench, we dismissed appeal filed by the revenue as not maintainable.

However, we keep open option to the revenue to file a miscellaneous application, if necessary, in case the issues involved in the present appeal comes within 3 exceptions as provided in para 10 of said circular and clause (e) of subsequent circular.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th August, 2019

INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KAUSHIK C GHELANI, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments