What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakh for appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. The assessee's counsel pointed out that the tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable given that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit set by CBDT instructions.

JCIT vs Atlantic Construction | ITAT Mumbai 2016

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

Before: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

For Respondent: Ms. Lopa B. Shah

Hearing: 29/03/2016

आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member)

The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03/10/2012 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai.

During hearing of this appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Ms. Lopa B. Shah, at the outset, brought to our notice that the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed monetary limit. This factual matrix was not controverted by the ld. DR, Shri M. Murli.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is noted, as canvassed by the assessee and agreed by the ld. DR that the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed monetary limit of Rs.10 lakh for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The CBDT issued 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/-

Since, the tax effect is below prescribed monetary limit, as agreed from both sides, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 29/03/2016.

Sd/- Sd/- (Rajendra) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 29/03/2016 f{x~{tÜ? P.S/.�न.स.

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant (Respective assessee) 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai, 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR,

JT CIT (OSD) CIR 15(1), MUMBAI vs. ATLANTIC CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments