ACIT CIR 21(1), MUMBAI vs. NIRAJ MUKESH PATEL, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 932/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 February 2017AY 2009-104 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 noted that the tax effect in the appeals was below Rs. 10 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which applies retrospectively to pending appeals, the Tribunal held that such appeals should not be filed or pressed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed two appeals against the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction under Section 54F. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below Rs. 10 lakhs, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal when the tax effect is below the threshold specified by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Ms. Keyuri Desai
For Respondent: Ms. Keyuri Desai

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.932/Mum/2013
I.T.A. No.933/Mum/2013

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

आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, J. M.: These two appeals filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated 29.11.2012 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai (hereinafter called as the CIT(A) ) for assessment year 2009-10. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) has erred in directing to allow deduction u/s 54F by not considering that the assessee has not furnished possession letter in respect of the property purchased." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciation that the purchase transaction is not irrevocable." 3. "The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored." 4. "The appellant craves leave to amend or to alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary."

2.

At the outset the ld. AR of the assessee pointed out that the tax effect in this appeal is below Rs.10.00 lakhs and 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 ld. DR also agreed to the submission of the ld. AR.

3.

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 appeals 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.”

4.

Considering the above, the two appeals filed by the Revenue, are therefore dismissed. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th February, 2017 Sd/- Sd/- (R. C. Sharma) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखा सदस्य / Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; यदनांक Dated : 15.02.2017 Sr. PS Dhannajay आदेश की प्रनिनिनि अग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) आयकर आयुक्त / CIT – concerned 4.

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →