ITO 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. KHETAN INDUSTRIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5212/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 October 2017AY 2001-023 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This was based on the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit for appeals specified by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order by the CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2001-02. The appeal involved adjustments made by the Assessing Officer on capital asset sale proceeds and the cost of acquisition of an asset.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals to the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
For Respondent: Shri Ketan Vajani
Hearing: 09/10/2017Pronounced: 11/10/2017

ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M:

The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2001-02 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)- 7 Mumbai dated 08/03/2013, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 31/03/2004.

(Assessment Year 2001-02) 2. In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal:-

1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the adjustment made by the A.O. on account of sale proceeds of capital assets sold by the assessee which was not reflected in the audited P & L Account of the assessee company". 2."On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs Brindavan Beverages Ltd- 321 ITR /186 Taxman 233 (Kar.) in respect of income computed u/s 115JB by the AO".

3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to adopt cost of acquisition of asset sold of Dhulia Salt Works as on 1.4.1981 at Rs. 23,30,000/- as against determined by the DVO of Rs. 15,01,808/-“

3.

At the outset, it was submitted by Ld. Representative for the assessee that the tax effect involved in the appeal of the Revenue is less than Rs.10.00 lacs, and the same has been accepted by the Ld. Departmental Representative. The CBDT vide Circular No.21/2015 dated 10/12/2015 has revised the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before the Tribunal retrospectively. Since the tax effect in dispute in the captioned appeal is stated to be below the monetary limit of Rs.10.00 lacs specified in the CBDT Circular dated 10/12/2015 (supra), the same is dismissed as not maintainable.

4.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/10/2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →