What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lakh as per CBDT instruction No. 21 of 2015. The Tribunal found no specific exclusion for penalty in the circular.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The assessee contended that the tax effect involved was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing an appeal. The Revenue argued that the monetary limit does not include penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before the ITAT given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit.

ACIT vs Sagar Films P.Ltd | ITAT Mumbai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘G’ MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Hearing: 31/01/2017

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Joginder Singh(Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21/10/2013 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai.

During hearing of this appeal, at the outset, Miss. Neha Paranjape, ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that in the present appeal, the total tax effect involved is below prescribed monetary limit of Rs.10 lakh for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. DR, Miss. Anupama Singla, did not controvert the factual matrix but contended that the monetary limit does not include penalty.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above, it is noted that the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed limit of Rs.10 lakh for filing the appeal before the Tribunal, as contained in CBDT instruction No.21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015 (F No.279/Misc./142/2007- IT(PT), applicable with retrospective effect, 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.

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/-

So far as, the contention of ld. DR that Circular No.21/2015 does not include penalty, is concerned, we find that Circular No.21/2015 dated 10/12/2015 does not say so and it has specified that the tax will not include any interest thereon, except where chargeability of interest is in dispute. 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. This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 31/01/2017.

Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य /JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 31/01/2017 f{x~{tÜ? P.S/.�न.स.

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant (Respective assessee) 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,

ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI vs. SAGAR FILMS P.LTD, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments