What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. As the Revenue did not provide any exceptions, the appeals were deemed withdrawn.

The Revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08. The tax effect in these appeals was below the monetary limit specified in a subsequent CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeals are maintainable in light of the revised monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

ACIT vs Malti Rahul Bhatia | ITAT Mumbai 2018

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

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Chamaria (AR)

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr. DR), Shri Rajesh Chamaria (AR)

Hearing: 24/09/2018Pronounced: 24/09/2018

O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM These appeals have been filed by the revenue against the three orders dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeals filed by the assessee against the assessment orders passed u/s 143 r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’). Since, all the three appeals pertain to the same assessee and the issues involved are identical, all the three appeals were clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 &b 2007-08

The CBDT, vide Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, has revised the monetary limit for filing of appeals by the Department before the Tribunal with retrospective effect. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee/respondent, the tax effect in the aforesaid appeals are below the monetary limit of `20 lakhs specified in the CBDT Circular aforesaid.

In this background, the Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue was required to state his position, however, he has not referred to any material which would show that the captioned appeals are protected by any of the exceptions provided in para 10 of the CBDT circular (supra).

Without going into the merit of the issue raised, the captioned appeal is deemed to be withdrawn/not pressed as it’s filing is not in consonance with the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018 (supra). Before parting we may clarify that if on a later date, the Revenue finds that filing of the appeal is protected by the exceptions provided in para 10 of the CBDT circular (supra), it shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order and reinstitution of the appeal for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal shall consider such application, if any, as per the extant law.

In conclusion, by applying the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018 (supra), the captioned appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn/ not pressed.

ACIT 19(2), MUMBAI vs. MALTI RAHUL BHATIA, 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