DCIT (IT) 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MARUBENI CORPORATION, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2118/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 August 2018AY 2006-073 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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, citing a CBDT circular that revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in dispute was below the specified limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2006-07. The appeal was filed before the ITAT, Mumbai Bench.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable in light of revised monetary limits for appeals by the Revenue. The grounds of appeal concerned amendments to income computation and liability for interest under Section 234D.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143,Section 144C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sharma
For Respondent: Shri V.K. Duggal
Hearing: 06/08/2018Pronounced: 06/08/2018

The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 2006-07 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)-57, Mumbai dated 10.12.2015, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 29.04.2014.

2. In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following revised and amended Grounds, which read as under :-

“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the CIT (Appeals) is justified in directing amendments in computation of income for A.Y 2006-07 on the basis of order of assessment for subsequent year A.Y 2007-08 when set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2007-08 itself depends upon corresponding figures of computation for AY 2006-07 & earlier years as per records.

2.

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the CIT (Appeals) was not justified in holding that company is not liable to pay interest u/s 234D of the Act, despite the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Alkatel Lucent USA Inc vs. DCIT.

3. The Appellant prays that the order of CIT (Appeals) on the above grounds be set aside and that of Assessing Officer restored.”

3.

The CBDT vide Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 has revised the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before the Tribunal with retrospective effect. 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 dated 11.07.2018 (supra).

4.

In this background, the Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue was required to state his position; he has not referred to any material which would show that the captioned appeal is protected by any of the exceptions provided in para 10 of the circular (supra).

5.

Without going into the merit of the issues raised in the captioned appeal, this 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 clarify here that if on a later date requisite material is brought to show that the appeal is protected by any of the exceptions prescribed in para 10 of the Circular (supra), then the Revenue shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for re-institution of appeal. The Tribunal shall consider such application in accordance with the extant law.

6.

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

Above decision was pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties at the conclusion of hearing on 06.08.2018.

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →