What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) concerning an assessment year. The total quantum of addition in dispute was Rs. 17,86,289.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before the ITAT when the tax effect is below the threshold specified by CBDT circulars.

ITO vs Nitinchandra M Jobanputra | ITAT Mumbai 2016

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

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI RAJESH KUMARShri Nitinchandra M. Jobanputra,

For Appellant: Shri Premand J

Hearing: 10/05/2016Pronounced: 18/05/2016

This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of order of CIT(A)-35, Mumbai in Appeal No.CIT(A)-35/ITO25(3)(1)/ITA 297/10-11, order dated 20/12/2012. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward 25(3)(1), Mumbai under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2008-09 vide his order dated 16/12/2010.

At the outset, it is noticed that the total quantum under dispute involved in this Revenue’s appeal amounts to Rs.17,86,289/-. The tax effect on this quantum addition at the maximum marginal rate of tax would be at Rs.5,35,886/-. Once the low tax effect is involved in the appeal, the same is covered vide CBDT Circular No Circular No.21/2015 dated 10/12/2015. As the issue is covered by CBDT Circular which mandates that the tax effect involving less than Rs. 10.00 lacs is not maintainable before ITAT and this circular also applies to pending appeals. Hence, this being low tax effect case, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18/05/ 2016.

ITO 25(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. NITINCHANDRA M JOBANPUTRA, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments