ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. LUXURY FIANNCE INVESTMENT CO., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6047/MUM/2010Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 July 2016AY 1997-983 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 tax effect of the disputed amount was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 23,37,550/- made by the AO on account of discount charges. The assessment year was 1997-98.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before the ITAT considering the tax effect and CBDT circulars on monetary limits for appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM) & SHRI JASON P. BOAZ (AM)

For Appellant: Shri. A. Ramachandran
For Respondent: Ms. Vasanti Patel
Hearing: 04/07/2016Pronounced: 04/07/2016

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against impugned order dated 20/05/2010 passed by the CIT(A)-30, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the assessment year 1997-98, on the 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. 23,37,550/- on account of discount charges made by A.O.

2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee firm had not been able to prove that the discounting charges have been paid wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee.

3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee was given opportunity to produce the copies of bills of discounting/finance charges which were not produced at the time of original assessment as well as at the time of fresh assessment.

4) The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored.

5) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.”

2.

At the outset, it is noticed that, the disputed issue is only for Rs. 23,37,550/- and the tax effect on this amount is below the monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. As per the latest CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10th December, 2015, new guidelines of monetary limit for filing of appeals by the Department has been issued, whereby the tax effect for filing of appeal before the ITAT has been prescribed at Rs. 10 lakhs. In the said Circular, it has been specifically clarified that the said instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine.

Order pronounced in the open court on 4th July, 2016

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →