IT 27(1)(3), NAVI MUMBAI vs. HIMACHAL MITRA MANDAL CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT (A)-33, Mumbai passed in appeal No.CIT (A)-33/IT/200/13-14 dated 30-09-2014. Assessment was framed by the ITO, Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai for assessment year 2010-11 vide his order dated 26-03-2010 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is against the order of the learned CIT (A) in not appreciating that the new sub-clause (viiia) to clause 24 of section 2 of the Act and not appreciating that the principal business of the assessee is banking.

At the outset the learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the tax effect in this appeal is below Rs.10.00 lacs and further submitted that in view of the CBDT Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 brought out by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the appeal was not maintainable and be dismissed. The learned Sr. DR also agreed to the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. I find from the records before us that the tax involved in the disputed issue is below Rs.10 lacs and therefore, in view of the circular no 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 no appeal should be filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal which has tax effect of Rs. 10.00 lacs or less and this circular is also applicable retrospectively to all pending appeals. The relevant extract the said CBDT Circular (Supra) is as under:- “This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”

Considering the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is therefore dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/06/2016.