What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee's appeal challenged an addition of ₹48,02,829/-. The Departmental Representative admitted that the tax effect was less than ₹20 lacs, falling under CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn based on CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 due to low tax effect.

ACIT vs Ecro India Services P.Ltd, Thane | ITAT Mumbai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, DR

Hearing: 23.10.2018Pronounced: 23.10.2018

Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “K” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री रसमत कोचर लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAMIT KOCHAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner of ECRO India services Pvt. Income Tax, Circle-1, Ltd. 3rd 302, Floor, Rutu Vs. Bisiness Park, Majiwada, Thane-400 606 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AACCE3703H अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant by : Shri Manoj Kumar, DR प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent by : None ुनवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 23.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement : 23.10.2018 AadoSa / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-20/ITO.9(1)(3)/IT-95/2014-15 vide order dated 23.09.2016. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1)-3, Mumbai (in short ‘ITO/ AO’) for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 21.03.2014 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

This appeal contains the challenge to quantum addition of ₹ 48,02,829/-. When this was confronted to the learned Departmental Representative he admitted that the tax effect in this appeal is less than ₹ 20 lacs and covered by the CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018.

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.”

In view of the above, we are of the view that the Revenue’s appeals is fully covered by CBDT circular No. 3 of 2018 and there is no exception brought out by the Revenue that these appeals 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.”

When this was confronted to the learned Sr. Departmental 5. Representative Shri Manoj Kumar, he could not point out that this appeal falls under any of the exception as provided in Circular No. 3 of 2018. Admittedly, the tax effect in this appeal of Revenue is much below the prescribed limit of filing appeal before the Tribunal i.e. ₹ 20 lacs as per CBDT circular No. 3 of 2018. In view of the above, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn in view of Circular No 3 of 2018.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23-10-2018. AadoSa kI GaaoYaNaa Kulao mao idnaMk 23-10-2018 kao kI ga[- .

ACIT CIR 1, MUMBAI vs. ECRO INDIA SERVICES P.LTD, THANE

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