ITO WD 2(1), KALYAN vs. ARUNODAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5539/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 March 2017AY 2007-083 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 held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 10 lacs or less should not be filed or pressed. The circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s deletion of job work charges addition. The net tax demand in the appeal was Rs. 6,84,280, which is below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of Revenue's appeal before the ITAT due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. Applicability of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 to pending appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR, Shri Prateek Jain, AR

Heard together (2 matters)

CO No.48 /Mum/2017
ITA No. 5539/Mum/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal of revenue in Cross Objection by the Assessee CO No.48/Mum/2016, are arising out of the order of CIT(A)-3, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-3/84-THN/2015-16 dated 27-06-2016. The Assessment was framed by ITO Ward 2(1), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2007-08 vide order dated 31-03-2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, it is seen that the relief allowed by CIT(A) on account of deletion of addition of Job work charges of Rs. 21,38,373/-. The net tax demand

CO No.48 /Mum/2017 Arunodaya Steel Industries; AY:07-08 will be Rs.6,84,280/-. Hence, net tax effect in this appeal of revenue on the disputed additions made by AO and deleted by CIT (A), is less than Rs. 10 lacs.

3.

During the course of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that in this case, the net tax demand is Rs. 6,84,280/- and thus, the tax effect in this appeal is below Rs.10.00 lacs. The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in view of the CBDT Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 brought out by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the appeal was not maintainable and be dismissed. The learned Sr. DR also agreed to the facts stated by the learned Counsel for the assessee but could not point out whether this case falls under any of the exception provided in the Circular.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find from the records before us that the tax involved in the disputed issue is below Rs.10 lacs and therefore, in view of the circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 no appeal should be filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal which has tax effect of Rs. 10.00 lacs or less and this circular is also applicable retrospectively to all pending appeals. The relevant extract the said CBDT Circular (Supra) is as under: -

“This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”

5.

Considering the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is therefore, dismissed.

CO No.48 /Mum/2017 Arunodaya Steel Industries; AY:07-08

6.

Now coming to the CO No. 48/Mum/2017 of assessee. The CO is supportive of the order of CIT(A) and hence the same is dismissed as infructuous.

7.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and CO of assessee is also dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 15-03-2017.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →