ACIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI vs. SANTOSH A. PATEKAR, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1830/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the monetary limit prescribed by the Board for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order by the CIT(A) that allowed the assessee's appeal. The tax effect of the Revenue's appeal was below Rs. 10 lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM

For Appellant: Shri K Mohandas

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)-33, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 24.12.2012, allowing the Assessee’s appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10 vide order dated 23.12.2011.

2.

None appeared for and behalf of the assessee-respondent when the appeal was called out for hearing, despite service of notice of hearing, which the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) was also directed to serve separately. At the very outset, it was observed by the Bench that the tax effect of the Revenue’s appeal is below Rs.10 lacs,

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →