Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)
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.
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.
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