What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for appeals, was applicable. As the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 regarding the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal.

DCIT vs M/S Monalisa Interior Decorations… | ITAT Bangalore 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH A, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE

For Appellant: Shri. Jivitha Chatterjee

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -12(1), Bangalore ..Appellant v. M/s. Monalisa Interior Decorators P. Ltd, No.1, ‘Monalisa Gardens’Parallel to Horamavu Railway Gate, Off Outer Ring Road, Horamavu, Bangalore 560 043 ..Respondent PAN : AABCM1660Q Assessee by : Shri. Jivitha Chatterjee, Revenue by : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT Heard on : 07.01.2016 Pronounced on : 08.01.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This is an appeal filed by Revenue directed against order dated 25.10.2013 of CIT (A)- III, Bangalore, for the A. Y. 2010-11.

ITA.95/Bang/2014 Page - 2

When the appeal was 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.”

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 ITA.95/Bang/2014 Page - 3 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.

With the above observations appeal of the Revenue is therefore dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 8th day of January, 2016.

DCIT vs. M/S MONALISA INTERIOR DECORATIONS PVT. LTD.,

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments