What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed amounts was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders deleting additions made for assessment years 2000-01 and 2008-09. The disputed amounts were Rs. 23,84,040/- and Rs. 27,53,684/- respectively.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable before the ITAT considering the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for appeals.

ACIT vs Vama Apparels (I) P.Ltd | ITAT Mumbai 2016

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

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

For Appellant: Shri. Lovish Kumar

Hearing: 02/03/2016Pronounced: 02/03/2016

PER JASON P. BOAZ, AM

The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the impugned orders dated 31/01/2012 and 27/01/2012, passed by the CIT(A)-38, Mumbai in respect of the orders of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and 143(3) of the Act for assessment years 2000-01 & 2008-09 respectively.

The grounds raised in these appeals are as under:-

2.1 For Asst. year 2000-01

1) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.23,84,046/- made u/s 40A(2)(b) without appreciating that the assessee had paid 15% more on goods purchased from sister concern and therefore the provisions of section sec.40A(2)9b) are applicable to the assessee’s case.” The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.

2.2 For Asst. year 2008-09

1) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing electricity expenses of Rs. 27,53,684/- ignoring the fact that the Leave & License agreement between the licensor M/s. Vama Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee company shows that the assessee is liable to pay 66% of the total bill amount.”

2) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing electricity expenses of Rs. 27,53,684/- by relying on the fact that for A.Y. 2009-10 the Assessing Officer allowed the claim in full, without appreciating that the verification regarding entire use of the premises was done for A.Y. 2009-10 and the same cannot be applied to the instant year.”

The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.

At the outset, it is noticed that, the disputed amount is only Rs. 23,84,040/- for Asst. year 2000-01 and Rs. 27,53,684/- for Asst. year 2008-09 and the tax effect on these amounts is much below the specified monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. As per the latest CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10th December, 2015, new guidelines of monetary limit for filing of appeals by the Department has been issued, whereby the tax effect for filing of appeal before the ITAT has been prescribed at Rs. 10 lakhs. In the said Circular, it has been specifically clarified that the said instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals. Accordingly, these appeals filed by the revenue for Asst. years 2000-01 and 2008-09 are not maintainable and are dismissed in limine.

Order pronounced in the open court on 02nd March, 2016

ACIT CEN CIR 42, MUMBAI vs. VAMA APPARELS (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments