What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine. It was held that the tax effect was below Rs. 10,00,000/- and the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 19,50,834/- made on account of commission paid to the assessee's husband. The Revenue argued there was no evidence of services rendered for the commission paid.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of the appeal based on the tax effect and CBDT circulars. Whether the commission paid was for services rendered.

ITO vs Minaxi R Sobti | ITAT Mumbai 2016

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

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Smt. Vinita Menon (DR)

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta (AR)

Hearing: 16/06/2016Pronounced: 16/06/2016

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 22/10/2012 passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals)-II, Mumbai for the assessment year 2007-08.

The revenue has challenged the impugned order on following effective ground of appeal:-

1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of Rs.19,50,834/-being commission paid to Rajiv Kumar Sobti, husband of the assessee for export order from Al

Dawamaha Est. even though there was no evidence of rendering any services for which commission was paid.” 2. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in this case is below Rs. 10,00,000/- as the total disallowance deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) is Rs. 19,50,834/-. Hence, as per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, the present appeal is not maintainable.

The Ld. Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the tax effect in department’s appeal is below 10 Lakhs, We find that the issue raised in appeal does not fall under any of the exceptions specified in para 8 of the Circular. Since, it has been specifically clarified in the Circular aforesaid that the instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals; the present appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable. We, therefore, dismiss the same in limine.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th. June, 2016

ITO WD 19(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. MINAXI R SOBTI, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Latest GST High Court judgments