What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the tax effect was below the threshold specified by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the tax effect was below Rs. 20 Lacs, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect based on CBDT instructions.

ITO vs Dr. Sushma Narayan | ITAT Bangalore 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA & SHRI LALIET KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR), Shri B.R. Jayatheertha, Advocate

Hearing: 13.03.2019Pronounced: 22.03.2019

Dr. Sushma Narayan, H-1402, H wing, Phoenix The Income-tax Officer (IT), Brigade Gateway, Ward – 1 (2), vs. 26/a, Industrial suburb, Bangalore. Subramanyanagar, Bangalore – 560 055. PAN: AQFPN1503Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR) : Shri B.R. Jayatheertha, Advocate Respondent by Date of hearing : 13.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

This appeal is filed by the revenue and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-12, Bangalore dated 16.05.2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

The grounds raised

by the revenue are as under. “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax( Appeals)-12, Bengaluru is contrary to the law and facts of the case.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax( Appeals)-12, Bengaluru ought to have considered the fact that in view of the Statutory provisions of section 54 the residential house must be in India.

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax( Appeals)-12, Bengaluru failed to appreciate the fact that in view of settled ruling of interpretation of tax statute, the residential house purchased/ constructed must be in India and not outside India.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax( Appeals)-12, Bengaluru failed to consider the Memorandum explaining provisions in the Finance Bill 1982 that the exemption in section 54 is granted with a view to encouraging house construction. This would naturally mean that house

IT(IT)A No. 1547/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 2 construction/purchase would be encouraged by provisions of this section in India and not outside India.

5. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Bengaluru may be cancelled and that of the AO may be restored.”

At the very outset, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that the tax effect in this case is of Rs. 19,86,723/- as worked out by the AO on page no. 5 of the assessment order. He submitted that in this appeal, the tax effect is below Rs. 20 Lacs and therefore, as per the recent CBDT instructions as per Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, this appeal of the revenue is not maintainable. Learned DR of the revenue had nothing to say.

We have considered the submissions of the learned AR of the assessee and we also find that in this appeal, the tax effect is below Rs. 20 Lacs and therefore, as per the recent CBDT instructions as per Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, this appeal of the revenue is not maintainable. Accordingly, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed because of low tax effect.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) WARD-1(2), BANGALORE vs. DR. SUSHMA NARAYAN, BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments