ACIT - 17(3), MUMBAI vs. THE HINDUSTAN CO-OP. BANK LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2352/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 August 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 noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT(A) concerning a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). The tax effect involved in the appeal was below Rs. 20.00 lacs.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal filed by the Revenue was maintainable given the tax effect and the CBDT's revised monetary limits for appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Somaiya, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Amar Gahlot, D.R
Hearing: 23/08/2018Pronounced: 23/08/2018

PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 is directed against the order passed by CIT(A)-28, Mumbai, dated 22.02.2016, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟), dated 30.09.2013. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.20.00 lacs. The CBDT vide its Circular No.03/2018, dated P a g e | ACIT-17(3) Vs. The Hindustan Co.op Bank Ltd. 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 stated to be 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.

3.

In the result, appeal of 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 →