What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Revenue appealed an order deleting an addition of Rs. 14,68,750/- made on account of bogus purchases. The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal due to a low tax effect, despite the merits of the addition.

ACIT vs Anupam Stationaery Ltd | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘A’ MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramchandran

Hearing: 04/07/2016

आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10/03/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, deleting the addition of Rs.14,68,750/-, on account of bogus purchases made by the assessee from various parties, without appreciating that the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases.

During hearing of this appeal, at the outset, none was present for the assessee, in spite of issuance of registered AD notice. The assessee neither presented itself nor moved any adjournment petition. It seems that the assessee is not interest to respond to the appeal of the Revenue, therefore, it cannot be kept pending indefinitely, consequently, we have no option but to proceed ex-parte, qua the assessee and tend to dispose of this appeal, on the basis of material available on record. It is noted that in the present appeal, the total tax effect is below prescribed monetary limit of Rs.10 lakh for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. DR, Shri A. Ramachandran consented that the tax effect is below prescribed monitory limit.

2.1. We have considered the submissions of ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In view of the above, it is noted that the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed limit of Rs.10 lakh for filing the appeal before the Tribunal, as contained in CBDT instruction No.21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015 (F No.279/Misc./142/2007-IT(PT), applicable with retrospective effect, wherein, the Department was advised/directed by the Board not to file appeal in the cases where the tax effect does not exceed the following monetary limit.:-

Sl. Appeals in Income –tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs.) No. 1. Before ITAT 10,00,000/- 2. U/s 260 A before Hon’ble High 20,00,000/- Court 3. Before Hon’ble Supreme Court 25,00,000/-

In view of the above instruction, since, the tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, consequently, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable, therefore, dismissed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 04/07/2016. Sd/- Sd/- (Jason P. Boaz) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य /JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 04/07/2016 f{x~{tÜ? P.S //.�न.स.

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant (Respective assessee) 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai, 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai

ACIT 9(1), MUMBAI vs. ANUPAM STATIONAERY LTD, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments