DCIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ROSHAN FABRICATORS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 825/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 July 2016AY 2007-083 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 appeal in limine. It was held that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in the CBDT circular, and no exceptions applied, making the appeal not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 31,40,303/- made under the head capital gain. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below Rs. 10,00,000/-, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT given the tax effect below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 45(4),Section 2(47)

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 BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri. B.S. Bist
For Respondent: Shri. Pawar
Hearing: 20/07/2016Pronounced: 20/07/2016

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 14/11/2012 passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals)-17, Mumbai for the assessment year 2007-08.

2.

The revenue has challenged the impugned order on following grounds:-

1. “ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,40,303/- which is capital gain assessable in the hands of the firm u/s 45(4) r.w.s. 2(47) of the I.T. Act.”

2. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,40,303/- made under the head capital gain ignoring the decisions in the cases of Sunil Siddharth Bhal vs. CIT 1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC), CIT vs. A.N. Naik Associates (2004) 187 CTR (Bom) 162 and CIT vs. Gurunath Talkies (2009) 226 CTR (Karnataka) 474.”

3. The appellants prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be reserved and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in this case is below Rs.10,00,000/- as the total addition made by the AO in respect of Capital gain assessable in the hands of the firm u/s 45(4) r.w.s 2(47) of the I.T. Act is Rs. 31,40,303/-. Hence, as per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, the present appeal is not maintainable.

4.

The Ld. DR fairly admitted that the tax effect in department’s appeal is below Rs.10 Lakhs, We find that the issue raised in appeal does not fall under any of the exceptions specified in para 8 of the Circular. Since, it has been specifically clarified in the Circular aforesaid that the instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals; the present appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable. We, therefore, dismiss the same in limine.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th July, 2016

More judgments on Section 45(4)

All 107 judgments and leading authorities on Section 45(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →