ITO WD 21(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. LIKHIYA D KANATH, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3795/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 August 2016AY 2009-103 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 held that the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT's Circular No. 21 of 2015. This circular also applies to pending appeals.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against an order allowing a deduction under Section 54F. The assessee argued that the tax effect of the disputed issue was less than Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed by the revenue is maintainable when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI B R BASKARAN & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

For Appellant: Shri Sachchidanand Dube
For Respondent: Shri N K Bhat

आदेश ORDER �ी अिमत शु�ला, �या स: PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM:

1.

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the revenue against impugned order dated 12.03.2012, passed by CIT(A)- 32, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10, on the following grounds:- “

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 54F amounting to Rs.34,29,500/- while computing the capital gain.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the fact of the present case are different form the case of Ms.

2 व�तु �क�त� एनतेरपृसेस �ाइवेट �ल�मटेड Vastu Kirti Enterprises P Ltd ITA 3795/Mum/2012 Sushila N Jhaveri (107 ITD 321). In the present case the assessee are different form the case of Ms. Sushila N Jhaveri (107 ITD 321). In the present case the assessee purchased two adjacent units in the same locality in joint capacity and not two residential houses situated in different localities.

3. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored”.

2.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the tax effect on the disputed issue raised by the revenue in its appeal is less than Rs.10 lakhs. In support, he filed following calculation of tax effect:- Sr Particular Amount No. 1 Denial of deduction u/s 54F of the Act from the Long Term Capital Gain income offered 34,29,500 2 Tax thereon @ 20% (since net taxable income after deduction would be less than Rs.10 lakhs, there would be no surcharge) 6,85,900 3 Add: EC @ 2% + S & HEC @ 1% of tax amount at Sr. No.2 20,577 4 Total tax effect 7,06,477

3.

After hearing both the parties, it is noticed that, the disputed addition on which the revenue has filed an appeal is less than Rs.10 lakhs. Ld. DR also admitted that the tax effect on the disputed addition in the impugned appeal is less than Rs.10 lakhs.

4.

In view of the aforesaid fact that the tax effect in the impugned appeal is less than Rs.10 lakhs, accordingly, in the wake of CBDT’s Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015, we hold that the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable. Further it has also been clarified by the same circular that this monetary limit will apply on pending appeals also which is evident from para 10 of the impugned Circular, which reads as under:-

3 व�तु �क�त� एनतेरपृसेस �ाइवेट �ल�मटेड Vastu Kirti Enterprises P Ltd ITA 3795/Mum/2012 “10. This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed”. Thus, the appeal of the revenue is treated as dismissed as non- maintainable.

5.

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 1st August, 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (बी आर भा�करन) (अिमत शु�ला) लेखा सद�य �याईक सद�य (B R BASKARAN) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 1st August, 2016 ��त/Copy to:- 1) अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2) ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3) The CIT –32, Mumbai. 4) The CIT –City -21, Mumbai 5) िवभागीय �ितिनिध “ए”, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई/ The D.R. “A” Bench, Mumbai. 6) गाड� फाईल \ Copy to Guard File. आदेशानुसार/By Order / / True Copy / /

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →