What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakh as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The assessee contended that the total tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing an appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable before the ITAT given the low tax effect, based on CBDT instructions.

ACIT vs Balkrishna L. Chhabda | ITAT Mumbai 2016

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

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Respondent: Shri Rajguru-DR, Shri B.K. Chhiber

Hearing: 03/05/2016

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27/02/2013 of the First Appellate Authority, Mumbai.

During hearing of this appeal, at the outset, Shri B.K. Chhiber, ld. counsel for the assessee contended that in the present appeal, the total tax effect is below prescribed monetary limit of Rs.10 lakh for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. DR, Shri Rajguru, did not controvert the factual matrix.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above, it is noted that the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed limit of Rs.10 lakh for filing the appeal before the Tribunal, as contained in CBDT instruction No.21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015 (F No.279/Misc./142/2007- IT(PT), applicable with retrospective effect, wherein, the Department was advised/directed by the Board not to file appeal in the cases where the tax effect does not exceed the following monetary limit.:-

Sl. Appeals in Income –tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs.) No. 1. Before ITAT 10,00,000/- 2. U/s 260 A before Hon’ble High 20,00,000/- Court 3. Before Hon’ble Supreme Court 25,00,000/-

In view of the above instruction, since, the tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, consequently, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable, therefore, dismissed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 28/04/2016.

ACIT 16(2), MUMBAI vs. BALKRISHNA L. CHHABDA, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments