Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. 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)
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.
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.
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.
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