ACIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI vs. MAJETHIA BROTHERS, MUMBAI

During hearing of this appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sneha R. Sarbhushan, at the outset, contended that the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed monetary limit. This factual assertion was consented to be correct by Shri Sanjeev Jain, ld. DR. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions 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 C.O. No.259/Mum2013 M/s. Majethia Brothers 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, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable.

So far as, the cross objection of the assessee is concerned, the same was not pressed by the ld. counsel for the assessee to which the ld. DR had also no objection, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable, whereas, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 29/02/2016.