DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4567/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 October 2024AY 2018-194 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 considered the submissions and examined the record. The Learned DR for the Revenue fairly submitted that the department's appeal had become infructuous by virtue of Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to Rs. 60 lacs. It was submitted that the tax effect in this appeal was below Rs. 60 lacs and therefore the appeal had become infructuous. The Learned AR for the assessee supported these submissions, stating that the appeal was not maintainable and had become infructuous. The Tribunal, in view of the enhanced monetary limit and the tax effect in this appeal being Rs. 59,91,683/-, dismissed the appeal filed by the department as infructuous. No finding was given on the substantive issue of the addition on account of employee insurance policy premium.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited, is in appeal against the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2018-19. The original order being challenged was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The dispute involves an addition of Rs. 1,73,13,000/- made by the AO on account of employee insurance policy premium. The assessee contested this addition before the CIT(A). The present appeal before the ITAT is filed by the Department (Revenue) against the deletion of this addition by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,73,13,000/- on account of Employee Insurance Policy Premium made by AO, ignoring the fact that Insurance Expenses on account of employees are personal in nature. The Revenue's contention, as understood from the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee (which are framed as the assessee's grounds but reflect the AO's initial action), is that insurance expenses on account of employees are personal in nature and therefore the addition made by the AO was justified. The assessee's contention, as reflected by the CIT(A)'s deletion and the subsequent appeal by the Revenue, is that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. During the hearing, the Learned DR (Revenue) submitted that the appeal has become infructuous due to a revised monetary limit for appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLATYA, ACCOUNTANT

For Appellant: Shri. Ankit Maheshwari, Shri. Lieder Panicker (SR

Pronounced: 11.10.2024

O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 11.07.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Page | 1 Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited; A.Y. 2018-19 Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the A.Y. 2018-19.

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

1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,73,13,000/- on account of Employee Insurance Policy Premium made by AO, Ignoring the fact that Insurance Expenses on account of employees are personal in nature."

2. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and confirm the order of the AO.”

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.

Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited; A.Y. 2018-19 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.

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. 59,91,683/-; 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.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 11.10.2024

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →