ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. DHANJANJAY M. PANDEY, MUMBAI

We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is observed, the Assessing Officer had passed an order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) for an amount of ` 6,20,000. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding assessee’s appeal against imposition of penalty sustained imposition of penalty @ 100% on addition of 8,09,300 thereby deleting the penalty imposed in respect of other addition. Thus, the tax effect pertaining to the amount disputed by the Department is less than the monitory limit of ` 10 lakh fixed by the CBDT in Circular no.21 of 2015 dated 10th December 2015, in relation to appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions of the parties and also finding that the CBDT circular under reference applies retrospectively, even to pending appeals, we dismiss the appeal of the Department as not maintainable.

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.08.2016