What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, following CBDT instructions. The assessee's cross-objection was deemed infructuous and also dismissed for being delayed.

The Revenue appealed against an order of the First Appellate Authority. The assessee had filed a cross-objection. The tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was found to be below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal due to insufficient tax effect. The secondary issue concerned the maintainability of the assessee's cross-objection.

ACIT vs La-Fin Financial Services P. Ltd | ITAT Mumbai 2017

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

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Ramit Kochar

Hearing: 22/09/2017

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated

15/09/2015 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, whereas, the assessee has preferred cross objection.

First we shall take up the appeal of the Revenue, wherein

the only ground raised by the Department pertains to deleting the disallowance of expenses without appreciating the fact that the assessee had no intention to carry out the business during the centric activities. However, it came to our notice that tax effect in the present appeal is less than prescribed monetary limit as the total addition made is `22,11,150/- only. The ld. DR also accepted that the tax effect involved is below prescribed monetary limit. Nobody was present for the assessee inspite of issuance of registered

AD notice. Thus, we have no option but to adjudicate the appeal on the basis of material available on record.

We have considered the submissions of ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In view of the above,

C.O. No.119/Mum/2015 M/s LA-FIN Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. it is noted that the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed limit of Rs.10 lakh, therefore, CBDT instruction No.21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015 (F No.279/Misc./142/ 2007-IT(PT) is applicable, wherein, the Department was advised/directed by the Board not to file appeal in the cases where the tax effect does not exceed the following monetary limit.:-

Sl. Appeals in Income –tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs.) No. 1. Before ITAT 10,00,000/- 2. U/s 260 A before Hon’ble High 20,00,000/- Court 3. Before Hon’ble Supreme Court 25,00,000/-

In view of the above instruction, since, the tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, consequently, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable, therefore, dismissed.

Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable.

Now we shall take up the cross objection (CO No. 119/Mum/2017 of the assessee), wherein the assessee has contended that the tax effect is below prescribed limit.

Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed. Since, we have already dismissed the appeal of the Revenue,

C.O. No.119/Mum/2015 M/s LA-FIN Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. therefore, the cross objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous. Even otherwise the cross objection of the assessee is barred by 503 days. The assessee has not adduced any evidence to explain the reason of the delay. Consequently, the cross objection of the assessee otherwise liable to be dismissed.

Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and also the cross objection of the assessee.

This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 18/09/2017

Sd/- Sd/- (Ramit Kochar) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य /JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 22/09/2017 Roshani, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.

C.O. No.119/Mum/2015 M/s LA-FIN Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.

ASST CIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. LA-FIN FINANCIAL SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments