ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. STERLING HOLIDAY RESORTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 944/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 October 2024AY 2006-07Bench: SHRI. PRASHANT MAHARSHI (Accountant Member), SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (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 Department fairly submitted that their appeal had become infructuous due to an enhancement in the monetary limit for filing appeals. The tax effect in this appeal was below the new threshold.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 29.12.2023. The Department was in appeal before the tribunal raising grounds related to the deletion of penalty and non-adjudication of grounds on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the departmental appeal is infructuous due to enhancement of monetary limit for tax effect for filing appeal before ITAT. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty and not adjudicating all grounds on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI. PRASHANT MAHARSHI & SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

For Appellant: Shri. Ninad Patade
For Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar
Pronounced: 14.10.2024

O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 29.12.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the

2.

The department is in appeal before us and has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) after relying in case of CIT Vs Brandix Maurtius Holding Ltd. although Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the same order remarking that “not mentioning DIN in assessment orders may be an ‘irregularity' but that does not make it an ‘illegality'.”

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating all the grounds of appeals on merits as the penalty order is held as void ab-initio for non- quoting of DIN in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019."

3.

During the arguments, the Ld. DR very fairly submitted that the department appeal has become infructuous by virtue of circular no. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, wherein the monetary limit for tax effect for filing appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has been raised upto Rs. 60 lacs. It is submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is below 60 lacs and as such the appeal has become infructuous and same may be disposed off accordingly.

4.

We have also heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee, who has supported the submissions of the Ld. DR, and stated that since the appeal is not maintainable and has become infructuous.

Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited; A.Y. 2006-07 5. We have considered the submissions and examined the record. In view of the enhancement of the monetary limit for filing the departmental appeal wherein the tax effect for filing the appeal should be Rs. 60 Lacs or above and the tax effect in this appeal has been shown to be Rs. 45,58,521/-; in view of these facts and the submissions made by the Ld. DR, the appeal filed by the department is accordingly dismissed having become infructuous.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the department is accordingly dismissed having become infructuous.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14.10.2024

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →