What did the Tribunal hold?

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

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT. During the hearing, it was brought to the Tribunal's notice that the tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit set by the CBDT.

ACIT vs Mahendra Kumar Bihani | ITAT Mumbai 2016

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

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Sanjay Arora

Hearing: 24/02/2016

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29/11/2011, of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, on the ground as stated in the grounds of appeal.

2 Mahendra Kumar Bihani

During hearing of this appeal, none was present for the assessee. However, at the outset, it was brought to our notice 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 M. Ranjan.

2.1.

We have considered the submissions of ld. DR and perused the material available on record. 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.

2.2.

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.

Before ITAT 10,00,000/-

U/s 260 A before Hon’ble High 20,00,000/- Court

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.

3 Mahendra Kumar Bihani

Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 24/02/2016. (Sanjay Arora) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद"य /JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 24/02/2016 f{x~{tÜ? P.S/."न.स. आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु"त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु"त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"या"पत ""त ////

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

ASST CIT CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR BIHANI, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments