ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. ABBAS ISMAIL CONTRACTOR, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5435/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 November 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)1 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 assessee's representative argued that the tax effect involved in both appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for preferring appeals. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and the record, agreed that the tax effect was below the monetary limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed two appeals challenging the order of the CIT(A) for AYs 2013-14 and 2016-17. The tax effect involved in these appeals were Rs. 39,55,200/- and Rs. 24,10,200/- respectively.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue are precluded due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Circular No. 09/2024 dt. 17-09-2024, Circular No. 05/2024, dt. 15-03-2024

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Assessee : Shri Satish Kumar, For Revenue : Shri Suresh Periasamy, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28-11-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28-11-2024 ORDER PER BENCH :

Both these appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the order dt. 22-08-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟] and they relate to AYs. 2013-14 & 2016-17.

2.

At the outset, the Ld.ARsubmitted that the tax effect involved on these issues contested by the Revenue are Rs. 39,55,200/- and 24,10,200/-; respectively for AY 2013-14 & 2016-17. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the Circular No. 09/2024 dt. 17-09-2024, issued by the CBDT fixing the monetary limit for preferring appeal before the ITAT, the Ld.ARsubmitted that the above said demands are below the monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs prescribed in the above said circular. Accordingly, the Ld.AR submitted that the Revenue is precluded in pursuance of these appeals. Accordingly the Ld.AR prayed that both these appeals may be dismissed.

3.

The Ld.DR, on the contrary, sought time to ascertain the tax effect involved in both the appeals.

4.

In the rejoinder, the Ld.AR submitted that the AO himself has mentioned tax effect in the grounds of appeal filed in Form-36 and they clearly show that the tax effect involved in these appeals is less than Rs. 60 lakhs.

5. We heard the parties and perused the record.Having regard to the fact that the tax effect involved in these appeals is less than monetary limited prescribed by the CBDT circular, referred above. Accordingly, the Revenue is precluded in pursuing the appeals. Accordingly, we dismiss both the appeals.However, Liberty is granted to the Revenue to move appropriate application before the Tribunal in accordance with law for recall of this order, if it is found that the above said circulars are not applicable to these appeals or if both these appeals are covered by exceptions given in the circular No. 05/2024, dt. 15-03-2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →