ADDL CIT 9(1), MUMBAI vs. BUSINESS MATCH SERVICES (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4698/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 March 2016AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as its tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order by the CIT(A) which partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The assessee's counsel argued that 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 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, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM & SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM

For Appellant: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy, Shri Ravikant S. Pathak
For Respondent: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak

Order : 07.03.2016 आदेश / 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)-19, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 24.5.2012, partly 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 05.12.2011.

2.

At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee’s counsel, Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, that the tax effect of the Revenue’s

1.

(A.Y. 2009-10) Dy. CIT vs. Business Match Services (I) P. Ltd. appeal is below Rs.10 lacs, and which is therefore not maintainable u/s. 268A of the Act in view of the recent Instruction issued by the Board (Instruction No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 (F. No. 279/Misc/142/2007-IT(PT)). The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) fairly conceded to the said tax effect of the Revenue’s appeal being at Rs.9,98,687/-, i.e., in agreement with the sum worked out by the ld. AR. The same is accordingly not maintainable u/s. 268A of the Act, requiring the appellate authorities to have regard to the monetary limit prescribed by the Board, which per its Circular dated 10.12.2015 (supra) is at Rs.10 lacs for the Appellate Tribunal. The same is therefore dismissed as incompetent. We decide accordingly.

More judgments on Section 268A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →