ITO 8(1)-4, MUMBAI vs. GLOBAL SECURITY SYSTEMS P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2187/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 February 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 revised the monetary limits for filing departmental appeals. The tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made under Section 68 and Section 43B. The additions related to cash deposits treated as reimbursement of expenses and service tax collected but not paid.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be entertained given the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 08.02.2016

PER C.N. PRASAD, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-16, Mumbai dated 25.01.2012 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s. 68 amounting to Rs. 8,78,990/- on account of amount introduced by the assessee in the assessee company by 2 holding it as reimbursement of expenses, without appreciating the fact that the said sums are cash deposits and the assessee company in its ledger a/c had duly acknowledged the said amounts as cash received.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s.43B amounting to Rs. 14,29,098 on account of Service Tax collected but not paid, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had collected Service Tax from the customers but not deposited the same into the Government Treasury.”

3.

Before going into the merits of the case, we consider CBDT’s latest instructions vide Circular No.21/2015 dated 10/12/2015, the relevant portion of which read as under:-

“ Circular No. 21/2015 F No 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt) Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board Direct Taxes

New Delhi the 10th December, 2015

Subject: Revision of monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before Supreme Court - measures for reducing litigation - Reg –

Reference is invited to Board's instruction No 5/2014 dated 10.07.2014 wherein monetary limits and other conditions for filing departmental appeals (in Income-tax matters) before Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before the Supreme Court were specified.

2.

In supersession of the above instruction, it has been decided by the Board that departmental appeals may be filed on merits before Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before the Supreme Court keeping in view the monetary limits and conditions specified below.

3

3.

Henceforth, appeals/ SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder: -

S. Appeals in Income-tax Monetary Limit No matters (in Rs)

1.

Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/-

2.

Before High Court 20,00,000/-

3.

Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/-

It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.”

4.

It is further clarified by the Board in its circular that these instructions will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts and Tribunals. It is also made clear that pending appeals below the monitory limits fixed in para-3 above may be withdrawn or not pressed.

5.

In the case in hand, the total demand as per CIT(A)’s order is less than the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, which is below the monetary limits as mentioned in CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 (supra). Following the same, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 8th February, 2016. (RAJESH KUMAR) (C.N. PRASAD ) लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated :8th February, 2016 व."न.स./ Rj , Sr. PS

4 आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

1.

""यथ" / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 3. आयकर आयु"त / CIT

4.

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, 5. मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"या"पत ""त //// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →