INCOME TAX OFFICER-11(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SALASAR MARBLES IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4924/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 April 2019AY 2012-134 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 held that the Revenue's appeal was covered by the CBDT circular which stipulated a monetary limit of ₹ 20 lacs for filing appeals. As the tax effect was below this limit and no exception applied, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A) which deleted additions made by the AO. The total additions deleted by the CIT(A) amounted to ₹ 60,31,099. The Revenue's appeal was filed after the issuance of a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed based on the revised monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular for filing appeals before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR प्रत्यथी की ओर े /

AadoSa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal filed by the Revenue is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], Appeal No. CIT(A)-18/IT-257/ITO-11(2)(2)/15-16 vide order dated 2 30.03.2017. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(2)(2), Mumbai (in short ‘ITO / AO’) for the A.Y. 2012-13 vide order dated 27.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has deleted the additions relating to additions made by AO on account of fine paid to custom department on account of custom duty amounting to ₹ 52 lacs and additions made by AO and deleted by CIT(A) on account of difference due to method of valuation adopted while prepared stock statement furnishing to bank amounting to ₹ 8,31,099/-. Thereby the total addition deleted by CIT(A) was ₹ 60,31,099/-, and the tax effect is below the low tax effect circular brought by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide circular F.No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt) dated 11.07.2018, wherein monetary limits and other conditions for filing of departmental appeal before the Tribunal has been revised and fixed at ₹ 20 lacs. He placed the copy of this circular on record.

We have gone through the circular and noticed that this circular will apply to pending appeals also & we are referring to Para 13 of the circular for this proposition, which reads as under: - “13. This Circular will apply to SLPs/appeals/ cross objections/ references to be filed henceforth in SC/HCs/Tribunal and it shall also apply retrospectively to pending SLPs/ appeals/cross objections/ references. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/ not pressed.”

3 4. In view of the above, we are of the view that the Revenue’s appeal is fully covered by CBDT circular No. 3 of 2018 and there is no exception brought out by the Revenue that this appeal falls under any of the exception as provided in Para 10 which reads as under: - “10. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect:

(a) Where the Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule IS under challenge, or (b) Where Board's order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or (c) Where Revenue Audit objection m the case has been accepted by the Department, or (d) Where the addition relates to undisclosed foreign assets/ bank accounts.”

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →