What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rs. 10,00,000/-. Following CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, the Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it did not fall under any exceptions and was pending.

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(Appeals) which partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) had granted relief after admitting fresh evidence, which the Revenue contended was in contravention of Rule 46A.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect and CBDT Circulars, and whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting fresh evidence.

ITO vs Kanhaia R Komu | ITAT Mumbai 2016

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

Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri. Arun Shenoy

Hearing: 06/09/2016Pronounced: 06/09/2016

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 19/09/2013 passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals)-36, Mumbai for the assessment year 2007-08, whereby the Ld. CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against assessment order dated 11.11.2009 passed under section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act.

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

(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing relief to the assessee of Rs.

9,40,000/- after admitting fresh evidence in contravention of Rule 46A of the I. Tax Rules, 1962.

(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing relief to the assessee of Rs. 10,38,718/- after admitting fresh evidence in contravention of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Case called for hearing, however, neither the respondent nor his authorized representative appeared. On the other hand the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) fairly pointed out 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.

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.

ITO 23(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. KANHAIA R KOMU, 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