DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. TIMES GLOBAL BROADCASTING CO. LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3798/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 June 2016AY 2008-092 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 held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the Board's instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The tax effect of the appeal was below Rs. 10 lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal by the Revenue is maintainable when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This is an Appeal by the Revenue directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 07.3.2014, dismissing the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2008-09 vide order dated 26.04.2011.

2.

At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee’s counsel, Ms. Rashmi Kyal, that the tax effect of the Revenue’s appeal is below Rs.10 lacs, and which is therefore not maintainable u/s. 268A of the Act in view of the recent Instruction issued by the Board (Instruction No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 (F. No. 279/Misc/142/2007-IT(PT)). The ld. Departmental Representative (A.Y. 2008-09) Dy. CIT vs. Times Global Broad Casting Co. Ltd. (DR) fairly conceded to the said tax effect of the instant appeal being well below Rs.10 lacs, the penalty under dispute – since deleted by the ld. CIT(A), being for Rs.6,20,183/-, and which is to be reckoned as the tax effect in such a case.

3.

In view of the foregoing, the Revenue’s appeal is not maintainable u/s. 268A of the Act, requiring the appellate authorities to have regard to the monetary limit prescribed by the Board, which per its Circular dated 10.12.2015 (supra) is at Rs.10 lacs for the Appellate Tribunal, i.e., for appeals preferred by the Revenue. The same is therefore dismissed as incompetent. We decide accordingly.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →