ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI vs. SUNIL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 784/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 July 2016AY 2003-044 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. This decision was based on the CBDT's circular dated 10.12.2015, which set monetary limits for filing appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning assessment year 2003-04. The appeal raised grounds related to allowing a discount, the examination of debtors, and bad debt issues.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing a discount and in not allowing the Assessing Officer to examine facts of debtors. The primary reason for dismissal was the monetary limit set by CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36,Section 251

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E ” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJENDRA & SHRI C.N. PRASAD

Hearing: 27.07.2016Pronounced: 27.07.2016

सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing :27.07.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement :27.07.2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM:

This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-19, Mumbai dated 30.11.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2003-04. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in allowing discount of Rs. 7,45,141/- u/s. 36 of the I.T. Act.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the 2 revenue has filed appeal for A.Y. 202-03 before the ITAT which is pending.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing Assessing Officer to examine the facts of the debtors for Rs. 3,49,713/- under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the Bad Debt issue u/s. 251 without applying the Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules.”

3.

Before going into the merits of the case, we consider CBDT’s latest instructions vide Circular No.21/2015 dated 10/12/2015, the relevant portion of which read as under:- “ Circular No. 21/2015 F No 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt) Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board Direct Taxes New Delhi the 10th December, 2015 Subject: Revision of monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before Supreme Court - measures for reducing litigation - Reg – Reference is invited to Board's instruction No 5/2014 dated 10.07.2014 wherein monetary limits and other conditions for filing departmental appeals (in Income-tax matters) before Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before the Supreme Court were specified. 2. In supersession of the above instruction, it has been decided by the Board that departmental appeals may be filed on merits before Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before the Supreme Court keeping in view the monetary limits and conditions specified below.

3 3. Henceforth, appeals/ SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder: - S. Appeals in Income-tax Monetary Limit No matters (in Rs) 1. Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 2. Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3. Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.”

4.

It is further clarified by the Board in its circular that these instructions will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts and Tribunals. It is also made clear that pending appeals below the monitory limits fixed in para-3 above may be withdrawn or not pressed.

5.

In the case in hand, the total demand as per CIT(A)’s order is less than the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, which is below the monetary limits as mentioned in CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 (supra). Following the same, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 36

All 261 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →