What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department, making the appeal not maintainable.

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which allowed the assessee's claim of long-term capital gain on the sale of a flat. The Assessing Officer had treated the gains as short-term capital gains.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal filed by the Revenue was maintainable in light of the revised monetary limits for appeals stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

ACIT vs Mahendra Kantilal Parmar | ITAT Pune 2018

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

Before: SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi , JCIT

Hearing: 25.01.2018Pronounced: 25.01.2018

आदेश आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)- II, Pune, dated 21-07-2014 for the Assessment year 2010-11.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual deriving income from other sources and long term capital gain on account of sale of a flat known as “CYRUS COURT”, situated at Wanawadi, Pune during the year under consideration. Assessee filed the return of income on 29-07-2010 declaring total income of Rs.76,02,102/-. Assessee claimed Rs.4,29,037/- as capital gain on account of sale of the said land. AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.98,45,530/- holding that the gains earned by the

2 ITA No.2003/PUN/2014 Mahendra Kantilal Parmar

assessee constitute short term capital gains. While holding so, AO

relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of

Girish Chandragupta and Tarunkumar Das 31 taxmann 39. CIT(A)

after discussing the various High Court judgments/Tribunal

decisions on this issue held that the sale of the said flat in question

should be decided on the date of execution of the document and not

on the date of completion of registration allowed the claim of the

assessee.

After hearing both the sides, we find the tax effect of

Rs.6,93,218/- in the present case would certainly be less than Rs.10

lakhs considering the relief granted by the CIT(A). Therefore, in view

of Circular No.21/2015 dated 10-12-2015 of CBDT raising the

monetary limit for filing of appeals by the Department before the

Tribunal, which also applies to pending appeals filed by the Revenue,

the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable and has to be

dismissed. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is

dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 25th day of

January, 2018

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 25th January, 2018 सतीश

3 ITA No.2003/PUN/2014 Mahendra Kantilal Parmar

आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ�ेिषत

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent 2. 3. The CIT(A)-II, Pune 4. CIT-II, Pune िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A Bench” 5. Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स आदेशानुसार

स�यािपत �ित //True Copy// //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNE vs. MAHENDRA KANTILAL PARMAR, PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments