DCIT 17(2), MUMBAI vs. ARUN SAMBHAJI GHOLE, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5595/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 August 2016AY 2009-104 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 Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition made under Section 50C for the sale of commercial property. The assessee filed a cross-objection. The Revenue's appeal was primarily dismissed due to low tax effect.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable on grounds of low tax effect as per CBDT circulars. The merits of the Section 50C addition were not adjudicated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR.

Hearing: 09.08.2016Pronounced: 12.08.2016

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA. No.5595/Mum/2013
C.O. No.253/Mum/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

One appeal is filed by Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by assessee are arising from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai, dated 03.06.2013 for A.Y. 2009-10.

2. In Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal:-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.19,54,599/- made under section 50C of the IT Act 1961 by the AO towards difference arising on account of sale of commercial property.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the report of the DVO without affording an opportunity to the AO to comment upon such district valuation officer report.”

2.

Before us, at the outset, ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the present appeal of the Revenue needs to be dismissed on account of low tax effect in view of the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015. The ld. Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the tax effect is less than the limit prescribed by the aforesaid CBDT Circular.

& C.O. No.253/Mum/14 A.Y. 09-10 [DCIT vs. Shri Arun Sambhaji Ghole] Page 3 2.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusing the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue, we prima-facie find that the tax effect in this appeal is below Rs.10 lacs. As per the announcement of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 10.12.2015 (Circular No. 21 of 2015), no Department appeals are to be filed against relief given by ld. CIT(A) before the Income Tax Tribunal unless the tax effect, excluding interest exceeds Rs. 10 lacs and it further states that the instructions will apply retrospectively to the pending appeals. In the present case, since it is an undisputed fact that on the additions which are in dispute, the tax effect is less than Rs. 10 lacs and in the absence of any material on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the issue in the present appeal is covered by exemptions specified in clause (8) of the aforesaid CBDT Circular, we are of the view that the monetary limit prescribed by the instructions of the aforesaid CBDT Circular would be applicable to the present appeal of the Department and therefore the present appeal is not maintainable on account of low tax effect. However, in case there is any error in the computation of the tax effect involved or if for any reason, the aforesaid CBDT Circular is not applicable, it would be open to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal. In such circumstances, we dismiss the appeal of Revenue without expressing any opinion on merits of the case.

3.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. & C.O. No.253/Mum/14 A.Y. 09-10 [DCIT vs. Shri Arun Sambhaji Ghole] Page 4

4.

When Revenue’s appeal is dismissed, Cross Objection arising out of same, became infructuous. So, same is also dismissed.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue and Cross Objection filed by assessee are dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 12th day of August, 2016.

More judgments on Section 50C

All 3,223 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →