What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the Board's Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the valuation of assets and depreciation. The assessee pointed out that the tax effect on the disputed issue was less than Rs. 10 lacs.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable given the tax effect on the disputed issue was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals.

ACIT vs Mehernosh R. Currawala | ITAT Mumbai 2016

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

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI AMIT SHUKLAShri Mehernosh R. Currawala

For Appellant: Smt. Rajeshwari Motwani

For Respondent: Dr. K. Shivaram

Hearing: 05/05/2016Pronounced: 05/05/2016

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 22.08.2013 passed by CIT(A)-27, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2002-03 on the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the valuation of assets based on average valuation of Department Valuer and assessee valuer even though huge difference of valuation was noted; viz. Rs. 7,30,000/- to Rs.48,32,500/- respectively.

2. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the A.O., while giving effect to order of Hon. ITAT, Mumbai bearing dated 25.02.2010 regarding computation of depreciation had already increased depreciation from Rs.3,04,000/- to Rs.7,56,500/- after considering assessee’s contentions.

3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the valuation of assets based on average valuation of Department valuer and assessee valuer as Income Tax Act does not permit such mandatory computation.

The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.”

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Dr. K. Shivaram pointed out that the tax effect on disputed issue is less than Rs. 10 lacs. In support, he gave the following calculation of tax :-

TAX EFFECT CALCULATION

Particulars A.O. CIT(A) 6 Battery operated forklifts 7,30,000 7,30,000 27,81,250 27,81,250 (Depreciation @ 100%) 1 Godrej make battery 2,500 2,500 50,000 50,000 operated forklifts (Depreciation @ 100%) 3 Voltas make diesel 60,000 24,000 3,00,000 1,20,000 forklifts (Depreciation @ 40%) Total 7,56,500/- 29,51,250 Difference in depreciation amount disputed by A.O = Rs. 21,94,750/- (29,51,250 – 7,56,500) Tax and Surcharge @ 30% = Rs. 6,45,073/-“ Thus, he submitted that now in view of the Board’s Circular no. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that though prima facie it appears that tax effect is less than Rs. 10 lacs, however, liberty should be given to the Department that in case the tax effect exceeds Rs. 10 lacs, to file Miscellaneous application for rectification or recalling of the order.

4. On perusal of the disputed issue before us, we find that the impugned addition/disallowance relates to depreciation and after giving effect to the Ld. CIT(A) order, the amount disputed by the Department is Rs.21,94,750/-. On such a disputed amount, admittedly the tax effect is much less than Rs. 10 lacs. Thus, in wake of the latest Board Circular (supra), the new monetary limit fixed is Rs. 10 lacs which is applicable on the pending appeals also. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as dismissed as not maintainable.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 5th May, 2016.

ACIT -16(1), MUMBAI vs. MEHERNOSH R. CURRAWALA, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments