What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular was also applied retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Revenue filed appeals before the ITAT for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. The disputed additions and the tax effect in these cases were below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- set by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeals filed by the Revenue were maintainable in light of the revised monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT.

DCIT vs M/S. Vedic Realty Pvt. Ltd. | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Shri M.Balaganesh, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM

Hearing: 27.06.2018Pronounced: 08.08.2018

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A No. 1520/Kol/2017

I.T.A No. 1521/Kol/2017

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

Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM:

Both the appeals above by the Revenue against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-21, Kolkata for the A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15.

3. The CBDT has issued Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, whereby the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Revenue Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and SLP before Supreme Court have been increased. The revised monetary limits laid down in para-3 of this Circular and the manner of computing tax effect as laid down in para-4 of this Circular are as follows: “3 . Henceforth, appeals/ SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:

-T.E & M/s. Vedic Reality P.Ltd Sl. No. Appeals/SLP’s in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs) 1. Before Appellate Tribunal 20,00,000/- 2. Before High Court 50,00,000/- 3. Before Supreme Court 1,00,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.

For this purpose, 'tax effect' means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issues against which appeal is intended to be filed (hereinafter referred to as 'disputed issues’). Further, 'tax effect' shall be tax including applicable surcharge and cess. However, the tax will not include any interest thereon, except where chargeability of interest itself is in dispute. In case the chargeability of interest is the issue under dispute, the amount of interest shall be the tax effect. In cases where returned loss is reduced or assessed as income, the tax effect would include notional tax on disputed additions. In case of penalty orders, the tax effect will mean quantum of penalty deleted or reduced in the order to be appealed against.”

In para-13 of the said circular it has further been clarified that the revised monetary limits will apply retrospectively. The relevant para-13 of the Circular reads thus: “13. This Circular will apply to SLPs/appeals/cross objections/references to be filed henceforth in SC/HCs/Tribunal and it shall also apply retrospectively to pending SLPs/appeals/cross objections/references. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed.

4. In the present cases, the disputed addition(s) and tax thereon in each case are below Rs.20,00,000/-.

In view of the above, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as not maintainable in view of latest CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dt. 11-07-2018.

In the result, both the appeal of revenue in & 1521/Kol/2017 for the A.Ys 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 08.08.2018

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VEDIC REALTY PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

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