What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) which provided relief to the assessee. The tax effect of the disputed additions was less than the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

DCIT vs John Fowler Ocular Lenses P.Ltd | ITAT Mumbai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2008-09 contest the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal)-2 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-20/IT-219/2014-15 dated 26/12/2016 qua certain relief provided to the assessee for Rs.35.12 Lacs. 2. The Ld. Auhtorized Representative for assessee [AR], at the outset, drew our attention to the fact that the tax effect of the quantum additions as contested by the revenue is less than threshold limit of Rs.20 Lacs and the same is covered by recently issued low tax effect Circular No.03/2018 dated 11/07/2018 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes [CBDT]. The Ld. DR, Shri V.K.Chaturvedi, has controverted the same by submitting that necessary instructions / certificate, in this regard, would be required from higher authorities.

We have gone through the circular and find that the tax effect of quantum in dispute is below prescribed limit of Rs.20 Lacs and the assessee stood benefitted by the above circular issued by CBDT wherein the minimum monetary limit for filing the appeals before various appellate authorities have been fixed as under:- S. No. Appeals/ SLPs in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (Rs.) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 20.00,000 2 Before High Court 50.00,000 3 Before Supreme Court 1,00.00,000 The aforesaid limits, as per para 13 of the circular applies to pending appeals also. In view of the admitted position, we dismiss the revenue’s appeal.

So far as the contentions raised by Ld. DR is concerned, we find that aforesaid circular does not envisage obtaining of any certificate from any authorities, in any manner. Nevertheless, the revenue is free to move appropriate application to recall this order, if at a later stage, it is found that the matter is covered by any exceptions provided in the aforesaid circular or in case the tax effect of the quantum additions as agitated by revenue exceeds the prescribed monetary limit.

Resultantly, the appeal stand dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07th September, 2018

DCIT 1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JOHN FOWLER OCULAR LENSES P.LTD, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Latest GST High Court judgments