ITO 20(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. NEETA MAHENDRA PURI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4051/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 June 2016AY 2005-063 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 dismissed the appeal in limine because the tax effect was below Rs. 10 lakhs, and the appeal did not fall under any exceptions specified in the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing a deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had not claimed this deduction in her original return or made the claim before the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect and CBDT circulars, and whether a deduction under Section 54 can be allowed at the appellate stage when not claimed before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

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

For Appellant: Shri. Durga Dutt
For Respondent: Shri. Hitesh P. Shah
Hearing: 13/06/2016Pronounced: 13/06/2016

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 14/03/2012 passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals)-31, Mumbai for the assessment year 2005-06.

2.

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

1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified of the case and in law in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 54 of the Act at Rs. 12,81,240/- ignoring the fact that the assessee had not made any claim u/s 54 of the Act in her return of income.”

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in directing AO to allow deduction u/s 54 of the Act without appreciating that the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act as claimed by her in the return of income. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in making an observation that the claim is actually u/s 54 of the Act and not u/s 54F of the Act ignoring that this fact is not borne out of the return of income and without any material on record for such claim.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in the entertaining the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act at appellate stage even though the assessee had neither made the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act before the assessing officer nor filed revised return of income claiming the deduction (As held in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. (SC) 111 ITR 1).

5. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be reserved and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in this case is below Rs.10,00,000/- Hence, as per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, the present appeal is not maintainable.

4.

The Ld. DR fairly admitted that the tax effect in department’s appeal is below Rs.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 13th June, 2016

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →