ITO 25(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. VIBHUTI KIRIKUMAR SODHA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4217/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 March 2016AY 2008-094 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 dismissed the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed or should be withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing the assessee to offer capital gains in AY 2009-10 and claim exemption under Section 54. The tax effect of the appeal was below Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable given the tax effect and CBDT circular. Whether capital gains and exemption under Section 54 were correctly allowed in the subsequent year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

For Appellant: Shri Viraj M. Shah

आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, J. M.: This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 02.03.2012 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (hereinafter called as the CIT(A) ) for assessment year 2008-09.

(A.Y.2008-09) ITO Vs Vibhuti K. Sodha

1.

“On the facts and circumstances of the case, and law the Ld. CIT(A) erred

in directing the additions made by the A.O. and allowing the assessee to offer capital gain in the AY 2009-10 without appreciating the fact that the capital gain should be offered in the year in which the agreement was made and registered and when the full sale consideration has been received by the assessee in the year 2007-08 i.e. AY 2008-09. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the additions and allowing claim of exemption u/s.54 of the I.T.Act,1961, in the AY 2009-10 without appreciating the fact that the assessee has purchased the new flat more than one year before the date of transfer took place of the old flat.”

2.

At the outset the ld. AR pointed out that the tax effect in this appeal is below Rs.10.00 lakhs and further submitted that in view of the CBDT Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 brought out by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance , Government of India, the appeal was not maintainable and be dismissed. The ld. DR also agreed to the submission of the ld. AR.

(A.Y.2008-09) ITO Vs Vibhuti K. Sodha

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find from the records before us that the tax involved in the disputed issue is below Rs.10 Lacs and therefore, in view of the circular no 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 no appeals should be filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal which has tax effect of Rs. 10.00 lacs or less and this circular is also applicable retrospectively to all pending appeals. The relevant extract the said CBDT Circular (Supra) is as under:- “This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”

4.

Considering the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is therefore dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd March, 2016

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →