INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI NEVILLE JIMMY DARUWALLA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5508/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 April 2019AY 2013-143 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 observed that the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 20 lacs. Following CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, the Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition made by the AO. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lacs, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh
For Respondent: Shri Asghar Zain V.P, Shri Ajay Singh
Hearing: 09.04.2019

O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member 1. The Revenue by way of this appeal is challenging the order dated 23/05/2017 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-56 hereinafter called [CIT(A)], Mumbai, in Appeal No.CIT(A)-56/ITO(IT)-2(1)(1)/2016-17/09-D. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer (IT)- 2(1)(1),Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 17/03/2016. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal.

1.

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO by relying on the judgment of Bombay High court in the case of Manjula Shah Vs DCIT reported in 355 ITR 474 (Bom) (2013) when the SLP filed in the said case is pending before SC.”

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in taking year of acquisition as 1981 for the purpose of computation of LTCG even though the share in property was bequeathed in the year 1999 on the death of his mother. 3. The Appellant prays that the orde of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 2. At the outset the Ld. AR pointed out that the tax effect involved in the Revenue’s appeal is below Rs.20 lacs and therefore the appeal is not maintainable in view of the Circular No.03/2018 dated 11/07/2018 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes [CBDT] and therefore, the same may kindly be dismissed.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR in short) on the other hand appeared to be fairly agreed to the contention of the Ld. AR that the tax effect is below Rs. 20 lacs and is covered by the circular of the CBDT.

3.

After hearing both the parties and perused the material available on record, we observe that the tax effect involved is less than Rs. 20 lacs and in terms of Circular No.03/2018 dated 11/07/2018 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes [CBDT]., the said appeal is not maintainable and is liable to dismissed.

Accordingly the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 12th April,2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →