Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Sanjay Arora
22/02/2016 सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing : 29/02/2016 आदेश क� तार�ख /Date of Order:
Madhu Snap Fastner Mfg. Company Pvt. Ltd. आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10/09/2015, of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, on the ground as stated in the grounds of appeal.
During hearing of this appeal, none was present on behalf of the assessee. However, at the outset, from the working of tax effect, it was brought to our notice that the tax effect in the present appeal is Rs.7,30,941/-, which 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/- 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. 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 22/02/2016.