ITO 16(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. BANOO R. BATLIBOI, MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28/03/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, on the grounds stated in the grounds of appeal

2. During hearing of this appeal, Shri Kishor Chaudhari, ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that in the present appeal, the total tax effect is below prescribed monetary limit of Rs.10 lakh for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. DR, Ms. Rama Priya Raghavan, did not controvert the factual matrix.

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.

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 of both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 28/12/2016. Sd/- Sd/-

(Ramit Kochar) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य /JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 28/12/2016 f{x~{tÜ? P.S //.�न.स.