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

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.

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.

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.

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.