ITO WD 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASHISH B ACHARE, NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 920/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 March 2016AY 2009-104 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT instructions. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order that granted relief of Rs. 16 lakh to the assessee. The assessee also filed a cross-objection. During the hearing, it was noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing an appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit. Whether the assessee's cross-objection becomes infructuous if the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

For Respondent: Shri B.A. Lawate
Hearing: 04/04/2016

आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01/11/2012 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, whereas, the assessee has also preferred cross objection against the aforesaid order.

2.

First, we shall take up the appeal of the Revenue ( Rs.16 lakh made u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).

1.

2.1 During hearing of this appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri B.A. Lawate, contended that the tax effect in the present appeal is below the prescribed monetary limit. This factual matrix was not controverted by the ld. DR, Shri Arvind Kumar.

2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is noted that the total addition deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is Rs.16 lakh and the tax thereon is below prescribed monetary limit of Rs.10 lakh for filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

2.3. In view of the fact, that the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed monetary limit, 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/-

As per the aforesaid instruction/revised monetary limit, the Department is not to file appeal before the Tribunal, wherein, the tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, consequently, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable, therefore, dismissed. 3. Now, we shall take up the cross objection of the assessee, which was argued to be in favour of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) . Since, we have dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as not maintainable, therefore, the cross objection of the assessee has become infructuous. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable, whereas, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 04/04/2016.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →