What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which fixed the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal. No exceptions were brought to the notice of the Tribunal.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A). The tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 20,00,000/-. The assessee was served notice for hearing, but it was returned unserved.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of Revenue's appeal before the ITAT due to low tax effect, in light of CBDT's monetary limits for appeals.

ITO vs Harini M. Kundert | ITAT Mumbai 2018

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal under Section 253 of Income-tax Act is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-34, Mumbai dated 04.03.2016 for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This appeal was heard on 24.04.2018, Shri Subhash Shetty, Advocate made his submission on behalf of assessee. However, the same was released for re-hearing. Notice was issued to the assessee for fixing the hearing of appeal afresh for 28.08.2018. The notice sent to assessee was returned back unserved with the remark of postal authorities “intimated”.

Perusal of grounds of appeal raised by Revenue reveals that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-. The CBDT vide its Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July 2018 fixed the monitory limit for filing appeal before Tribunal. Therefore, in view of the Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July 2018, the appeal filed by Revenue is not Mum 16-Smt. Harini M. Kunder

maintainable and the same is dismissed. No exception as provided in the said Circular is brought to our notice.

ITO 22(1)(4),MUMBAI vs. HARINI M. KUNDERT, 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