ACIT 19(2), MUMBAI vs. KIRTILAL M SHAH, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3285/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 July 2018AY 2009-102 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 in limine as the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The assessee did not press their cross-objection.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition made under Section 68 related to share transactions. The tax effect involved was less than Rs. 20.00 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue's appeal should be entertained given the low tax effect and the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Chamaria
For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Hearing: 17.7.2018Pronounced: 17.7.2018

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 3285/Mum/2016
C.O. No. 318/Mum/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R PER BENCH: The revenue has filed this appeal and the assessee has filed Cross objection challenging the order dated 08-02-2016 passed by Ld CIT(A)-30, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2009-10. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act relating to share transactions.

2.

At the time of hearing, we noticed that the quantum in dispute is Rs.41.05 lakhs and hence the tax effect involved therein is less than Rs.20.00 lakhs. The CBDT has issued a new Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 in supersession of its earlier Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. According to the Circular No.3/2018, the revenue is precluded from pursuing its appeal if the tax effect is Rs.20.00 lakhs or less. Apparently the issue in dispute does

2 Kirtilal M. Shah not fall in any of the exceptions specified in paragraph 10 of the Circular No.3/2018, referred above. The Ld D.R, however, sought time to get a certificate from the PCIT/CIT concerned that the grounds urged in this appeal does not fall under any of the exceptions specified in the said circular. However, from the available material, he could not point out that the issue contested in this appeal fall in any of the exceptions.

3.

We have noticed that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.20.00 lakhs and the issue contested herein also apparently does not fall in any of the exceptions specified in the Circular. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal of the revenue in limine. However, the revenue is given liberty to move miscellaneous application seeking recall of this order, if it is found that the issue contested in this appeal falls in any of the exception provided in paragraph 10 of the Circular.

4.

The Ld A.R did not press cross objection filed by the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 17.7.2018.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →