ITO WD 4 PALGHAR, PALGHAR vs. SUDHIR PRABHAKAR VICHARE, PALGHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1790/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 October 2018AY 2011-123 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 noted that CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the specified limit, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed appeals against the orders passed by the CIT(A) for A.Y 2011-12. The tax effect involved in both appeals was less than Rs. 20 lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect involved and the revised monetary limits prescribed by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, G Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R
For Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, C.A Date of Hearing: 01.10.2018
Hearing: 01.10.2018Pronounced: 01.10.2018

O R D E R

Per Ravish Sood, JM

1.

The present appeals filed by the revenue are directed against the respective orders passed by the CIT(A)-3, Thane, for A.Y 2011-12, dated 20.12.2016, which in turn are directed against the respective orders passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) and under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), dated 28.03.2014 and 24.09.2014, respectively.

2.

The ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘A.R’) at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal submitted that the tax effect involved in both of the aforementioned appeals was less than Rs. 20 lacs. In support of his aforesaid contention, the ld. A.R had placed on record the working of the tax liability involved in the abovementioned appeals filed by the revenue. The ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘D.R’) on being confronted did not controvert the factual position so averred by the ld. A.R before us.

P a g e | 2 & 1792/Mum/2017 A.Y 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 Vs. Sudhir Prabhakar Vichare 3. We find that the CBDT vide its Circular No.03/2018, dated 11/07/2018 has revised the monetary limits for filing of appeals 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 →