ITO 8(1)3, MUMBAI vs. EDIT SYSTEMS P. LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1384/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 October 2016AY 2006-073 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 dismissed the appeal in limine as the tax effect was below Rs. 10,00,000 and did not fall under any exceptions specified in the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The penalty was related to sundry balances written off by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of the appeal due to low tax effect and the allowability of deduction for sundry balances written off.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 36(1)(vii),Section 36(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri. Nitin Waghmode
For Respondent: Shri. Ashish Gatagat
Hearing: 19/10/2016Pronounced: 19/10/2016

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 27/01/2012 passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals)-16, Mumbai for the assessment year 2006-07.

2.

The revenue has challenged the impugned order on following effective grounds:-

1.

"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 3,42,387/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.”

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in respect of Sundry Balance written off by the assessee amounting to Rs. 10,17,198/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to prove the allowability of the impugned deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s.36(2) of the Act.”

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in respect of Sundry Balance written off by the assessee amounting to Rs. 10,17,198/- without appreciating the fact that the basic condition laid down u/s 36(2) had not been fulfilled by the assessee and therefore, the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in this case is below Rs.10,00,000/- and as per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, the present appeal is not maintainable.

4.

The Ld. DR fairly admitted that the tax effect in department’s appeal is below Rs.10 Lakhs, we find that the issue raised in appeal does not fall under any of the exceptions specified in para 8 of the Circular. Since, it has been specifically clarified in the Circular aforesaid that the instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals; the present appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable. We, therefore, dismiss the same in limine.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →