ITO 32(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. PRATHMESH REALTORS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1516/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 September 2018AY 2010-113 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for a wrong claim of deduction under Section 80IB(10). The assessee's representative pointed out that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT given the tax effect below the CBDT prescribed limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 80IB(10)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (DR)
Hearing: 06/09/2018Pronounced: 06/09/2018

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-44 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2010-11, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order passed by the u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).

2.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective grounds:-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) levied on account of wrong claim of deduction u/s 80IB (10) of the I.T. Act. The Ld. CIT (A) also erred in relying on the decision in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ltd. without appreciating the fact that the facts of the present case are different from the facts of that case.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the respondent/assessee pointed out that the tax effect of the relief granted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is below Rs.20 lacs and as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, F. No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt) dated 11th July, 2018 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India limit fixed by the CBDT for filing the appeal before the ITAT is 20 lacs.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) fairly conceded that this appeal is not maintainable in light of the above said CBDT Circular. The Ld. DR also did not point out that this appeal falls in any of the exceptions carved out in the above said circular.

5.

We have gone through the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the grounds of appeals. We find that the tax effect in the above referred appeal is less than Rs. 20 lacs. Accordingly, we dismiss the aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.

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 →