What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Circular No. 21/2015 was squarely applicable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions were met. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2003-04. The tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, which is below the threshold for filing appeals before the Tribunal as per Circular No. 21/2015.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal given the low tax effect, as per the CBDT's circular.

DCIT vs Smt. B.M. Mumtaz Ali | ITAT Bangalore 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH A, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA.1124/Bang/2013

CO No.20/Bang/2014

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

ITA.1124/Bang/2013 Page - 1 CO No.20/Bang/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year : 2003-04) Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle -2(3), Mangaluru .. Appellant v. Smt. B. M. Mumtaz Ali, Showkath Manzil, 8th Block, Chokkabettu, Surathkal, Mangaluru .. Respondent PAN : ADDPA6813B Cross objection No.20/Bang/2014 (I.T.A No.1124/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year : 2003-04) (By the Assessee) Assessee by : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. P. Chandrashekar, CIT - DR Heard on : 22.06.2016 Pronounced on : 30 .06.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

These are appeal and cross objection filed by the Revenue and assessee respectively, against order dated 23.03.2013 of CIT (A), Mysuru, for the A. Y. 2003-04.

ITA.1124/Bang/2013 Page - 2 CO No.20/Bang/2014 02. When the appeal and CO were taken up for hearing, the Bench pointed out to the parties that tax effect involved in this appeal was less than Rs.10 lakhs for the impugned assessment year, therefore by virtue of Circular No.21/2015, dt.10.12.2015, is below the limit laid down for filing appeals before this Tribunal.

Ld. DR submitted that para 8 of the circular was not applicable in this case. Therefore he did not object to the application of the circular.

We have perused the orders and heard the contentions. Para 4 of the circular No.21/2015 (supra) is reproduced hereunder :

“4. For this purpose, “tax effect” means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issues against which appeal is intended to be filed (hereinafter referred to as “disputed issues”). However the tax will not include any interest thereon, except where chargeability of interest itself is in dispute. In case the chargeability of interest is the issue under dispute, the amount of interest shall be the tax effect. In cases where returned loss is reduced or assessed as income, the tax effect would include notional tax on disputed additions. In case of penalty orders, the tax effect will mean quantum of penalty deleted or reduced in the order to be appealed against.”

ITA.1124/Bang/2013 Page - 3 CO No.20/Bang/2014

The tax effect on the issues that are disputed by the Revenue is less than Rs.10 lakhs for the impugned assessment year. Assessee had not challenged the constitutional validity of any provisions of the Act nor had it challenged the legality of the Circular. Revenue has not brought to our notice anything to show that the appeal arose on an issue emanating from any Revenue Audit Objections accepted by the Department. Addition giving rise to the appeal does not relate to any undisclosed foreign assets / bank accounts. Thus we find that circular No.21/ 2015 (supra) is squarely applicable in this case. However if Revenue find that appeal arise out of issues emanating from audit objection it will be free to file MP for recalling this order. If the appeal gets revived then needless to say the CO shall also be revived.

In view of the above, cross objection by the assessee becomes infructuous and is dismissed.

ITA.1124/Bang/2013 Page - 4 CO No.20/Bang/2014

With the above observations appeal of the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of June, 2016.

DCIT vs. SMT. B.M. MUMTAZ ALI,

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments