ITO 32(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. SAMIT RANJIT JAIN, MUMBAI

During hearing of this appeal, at the outset, Shri Milin Dattani along with Tejaswini Ghag, ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that in the present appeal, the total addition is Rs.26,55,029/- and consequential tax effect comes to Rs.9,46,211/-, which is below prescribed monetary limit of Rs.10 lakh for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. DR, Shri A. Rajhans, did not controvert the factual matrix.

2.1. I 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.:-

Before ITAT 10,00,000/- 2. U/s 260 A before Hon’ble High 20,00,000/- Court 3. Before Hon’ble Supreme Court 25,00,000/- 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 in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 30/08/2015.