What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Revenue appealed an order from the CIT(A) regarding the restriction of guarantee commission. The assessee pointed out that the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lacs, making the appeal not maintainable.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

ACIT vs Galaxy Surfactants Ltd, Navi… | ITAT Mumbai 2019

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

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Jain

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Shri P.M.Jain

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 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-56 hereinafter called [CIT(A)], Mumbai, in Appeal No.CIT(A)-56/ITO(IT)- 15(1)(2)/2016-17/299-G dated 22/08/2017. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(2),Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 27/01/2017.The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal.

“CIT(A) has erred in giving direction to restrict guarantee commission @0.7%, in view of the decision of M/s. Everest Kento Cylinder Ltd., without appreciating the facts that the though the rate of guarantee commission defers from case to case as per the individual credit rating, risk factor and other factors affecting risk involved in providing gurantee. 2. “the appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A), on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. “The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any grounds or add new ground, which may be necessary.”

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 contentions of the Ld. AR that the tax effect is below Rs. 20 lacs and is covered by the circular referred to by the Ld. AR.

After hearing both the parties and perused the material available on record, we observe that the tax effect involved is below Rs. 20 lacs and in terms of Circular No.03/2018 dated 11/07/2018 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes [CBDT]., and 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.

ASST CIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY SURFACTANTS LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

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