ITO 1(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. PARKAR HANNIFIN INDIA P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1524/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 August 2019AY 2003-043 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 appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable. This was based on the CBDT's circular revising the monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT, which the current appeal's tax effect fell below.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee's counsel pointed out that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT. The Departmental Representative conceded this point.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT circular.

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, MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)
For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Desh Pande (DR), Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)
Hearing: 20/08/2019Pronounced: 21/08/2019

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2003-04, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order passed u/s 271 (1)(c) 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. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in directing to delete penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of Rs. 15,51,027/-. Assessment Year: 2003-04 1.1 The CIT (A) has further erred in overlooking the fact that the claim of Rs. 21,59,558/-.

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.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) fairly conceded that this appeal is not maintainable in light of the aforesaid circular issued by the CBDT. The Ld. DR also did not point out that this appeal falls in any of the exceptions carved out in the above said circular.

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 →