What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2005-06. The tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 10.00 lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before the Tribunal considering the tax effect and the CBDT's revised monetary limits for appeals.

DCIT vs Minoo Rashesh Patel | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU & SHRI AMARJIT SINGHSmt.Minoo Rashesh Patel,

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed Rizwan

For Respondent: Shri Harsh Kothari

Hearing: 20/10/2016Pronounced: 21/10/2016

ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M:

The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2005-06 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)-31, Mumbai dated 27/09/2013, which in turn, arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 28/12/2007.

At the outset, it is noticed that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.10.00 lacs. The CBDT vide Circular No.21/2015 dated 10/12/2015 has revised the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before the Tribunal retrospectively. Since the tax effect in dispute in the captioned appeal is stated to be below the monetary limit of Rs.10.00 lacs specified in the CBDT Circular dated 10/12/2015 (supra), the same is dismissed as not maintainable.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

DCIT 20(2), MUMBAI vs. MINOO RASHESH PATEL, 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