ITO 7(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. RUPAM COLOUR LAB P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1706/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 June 2016AY 2003-044 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 noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakh for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable. The assessee's cross-objection, which supported the CIT(A)'s order, was also dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal and the assessee filed a cross-objection against an order of the CIT(A). During the hearing, no one appeared for the assessee. The Revenue's counsel contended that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing an appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal due to a low tax effect. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's cross-objection.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None mentioned

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Hearing: 16/06/2016

आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue has filed appeal and the assessee has also preferred cross objection against the impugned order dated 04/12/2012 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, for Assessment year 2003-04.

2.

During hearing of this appeal, none was present for the assessee in spite of issuance of registered AD notice, therefore, 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. At the outset, the ld. DR also contended that the total tax effect is below prescribed monetary limit of Rs.10 lakh for filing the appeal before this Tribunal.

1.

2.1. We have considered the submissions of the 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/-, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable, therefore, dismissed.

3.

So far as, the cross objection of the assessee (CO No.85/Mum/2014) is concerned, it is in support of the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Even otherwise, we find that the order of the ld. First Appellate Authority is quite justified, requires no modification. Thus, the Cross objection of the assessee is also dismissed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of Ld. DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 16/06/2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →