What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

The Revenue filed an appeal with the ITAT, which was delayed by four days. The assessee's counsel argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, which the Revenue's counsel could not dispute.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the low tax effect, as per CBDT guidelines.

DCIT vs Cera Chem Pvt Ltd. | ITAT Chennai 2018

Before: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Hearing: 26.09.2018Pronounced: 26.09.2018

The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Cere Chem Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No. 1-A, New Avadi Road, Corporate Circle 1 (2), High Court Colony, Villivakkam Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 049. [PAN: AAACC1308C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri Awijit Rekshit, JCIT अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri L. Natarajan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of hearing : 26.09.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2018 आदेश /O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Chennai, dated 31.01.2018 in for the assessment year 2009- 10 passed U/s. 250(6) of the Act. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the 2. I.T.A. I.T.A. No. I.T.A. I.T.A. No. No.1252 No. 252 252/Chny 252 Chny Chny/18 Chny disallowance of ₹.38.68 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer in respect of deduction claimed on excise duty paid on stock transfer.

The appeal of the Revenue is found to have been filed late by four days before the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. The ld. DR, citing the reasons stated by the ld. Assessing Officer, requested for condoning the delay and to admit the appeal for hearing. The ld. Counsel for the assessee did not object to the submissions of the ld. DR. Accordingly, we condone the delay of four days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing.

At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable since the tax effect is below Rs.20 lakhs. The Ld. DR also could not controvert to the finding of the ld. AR.

The CBDT in its latest Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 had fixed the monetary tax effect as Rs.20 lakhs for filing appeal before the Tribunal.

Further, it is apparent from the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities that in the case of the assessee, the tax effect is below Rs.20 lakhs which is also conceded by the Ld. DR. Hence due to the instructions issued by the CBDT vide its Circular mentioned herein above, we hereby hold that the appeal 3 I.T.A. I.T.A. No. I.T.A. I.T.A. No. No.1252 No. 252 252/Chny 252 Chny Chny/18 Chny filed by the Revenue is not maintainable and accordingly the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI vs. CERA CHEM PVT LTD., CHENNAI

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