DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI vs. MILAN B. DALAL, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5230/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 June 2019AY 2007-083 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 found that the tax effect was indeed below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The assessee's representative argued that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal considering the tax effect and the prevailing CBDT circulars.

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, “D” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R
For Respondent: Shri Dinkle Harija, A.R
Hearing: 17.06.2019Pronounced: 17.06.2019

O R D E R

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-52, Mumbai, dated 02.05.2017, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), dated 30.03.2016.

2.

The ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘A.R’) for the assessee at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal submitted, that the tax effect involved in the present appeal filed by the revenue was less than Rs.20 lacs. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the aforementioned appeal as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11.07.2018 was not maintainable.

P a g e | The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,CC-4(4) Central Range-4 Vs. Shri Milan B. Dalal 3. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘D.R’) could not controvert the aforesaid contention advanced by the counsel for the assessee.

4.

We find that the CBDT vide its Circular No.03/2018, dated 11/07/2018 has revised the monetary limit for filing of appeal by the Department before the Tribunal, retrospectively. Since the tax effect in dispute in the captioned appeal is admittedly below the monetary limit of Rs.20.00 lacs specified in the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11/07/2018, therefore, the same is dismissed as not maintainable.

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 →