ITO 26(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SONIA SANJAY SETHI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4674/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 July 2016AY 2010-114 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 filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT's circular which stipulated monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was filed for the assessment year 2010-11.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds related to monetary limits for appeals, not on the merits of the penalty deletion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 192,Section 139(1)

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, “E ” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJENDRA & SHRI C.N. PRASAD

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Ghosh
Hearing: 25.07.2016Pronounced: 25.07.2016

आदेश / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM:

1.

This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-28, Mumbai dated 28.04.2014 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11.

2. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) 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 holding that Sec. 192 and Sec. 139(1) are pari material or cognate provisions.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that compliance of Sec. 192 cannot make the provision of Sec. 139(1) otiose.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)erred in holding that the appellant has suo moto disclosed the salary from IDFC Bank interest and capital gain in its return of income.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)erred on relying on Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) without considering that the facts are totally different”.

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.

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.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →