What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal as the tax effect did not exceed the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as it was rendered infructuous.

The Department appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which treated certain income as capital gains. The Department argued that the share bills were from a fraudulent concern and the trading member was expelled.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Department's appeal before the ITAT based on the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

ITO vs Rekha H. Jain | ITAT Mumbai 2016

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

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri. B.S.Bist

For Respondent: Ms. Aasifa Khan

Hearing: 29/02/2016Pronounced: 29/02/2016

Heard together (2 matters)

CO No 89/MUM/2014

ITA NO.1665/MUM/2013

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

The present appeal and the cross appeal pertain to the assessee Rekha H. Jain. for the Asst. year 2003-2004 against order dt. 11/12/2012 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-34, Mumbai and the appeal file by the department respectively.

Assessment Year: 2003-04 & CO.89/MUM/2014 (ITA NO.1665/MUM/2013) Assessment Year: 2003-04 2.1 The department has challenged the impugned order dt. 11/12/2012 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the following effective grounds:- i). “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in accepting that income of Rs. 9,67,899/- is Long-term capital gain and Rs. 1,16,004/- is Short-term capital gain instead of it being taxed as income from other sources (undisclosed) ignoring the fact that bills of shares claimed are issued by M/s. Gold Star Finvest P. Ltd. which is a fraudulent billing concern..” ii) “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in allowing the assessee’s appeal by accepting the details of purchase bills pertaining to M/s Gold Star Finvest Pvt. Ltd. which has been expelled from Trading Membership of the Exchange and no trades can be executed through an expelled trading Member. ” iii) “The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and matter may be decided according to law.”

2.2 At the outset, the Ld. DR pointed out that the tax involved in this case does not exceed Rs. 10,00,000/-. 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 as amount exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs. In the said Circular, it has been specifically clarified that the said instruction Assessment Year: 2003-04 & CO.89/MUM/2014 (ITA NO.1665/MUM/2013) Assessment Year: 2003-04 will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine.

CO 89/Mum/2014.

The assessee has filed the present Cross Objection No. 89/Mum/2014 against the aforesaid appeal filed by the department.

Since we have dismissed the appeal filed by the department on the ground of maintainability of the appeal in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10th December, 2015, there is no need to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee in Cross appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is also dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the department as well as Cross Objection filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2003-04 are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th February, 2016

ITO 24(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. REKHA H. JAIN, 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