ITO - 17(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. SMT. SABANA MOHD. AHMED. RANGARI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7549/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 January 2016AY 2003-044 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 agreed that the tax effect was below Rs. 10 lakhs and, in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the appeal was not maintainable. The circular also applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2003-04. The assessee's representative pointed out that the tax effect was below Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular, and whether deduction u/s 54F is allowable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Ms. Lopa Shah

आदेश / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 19.08.2011 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai (hereinafter called as the CIT(A) ) for assessment year 2003-04. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:

ITO Vs Smt. Sabana Mohd. Ahmed Rangari

1.

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the relief to beneficiary of dubious

transaction i.e. assessee’s on the base fact that ITAT, Mumbai has quantified income of M/s Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd for A.Y.200-03 at 0.15% of various dubious transaction as an entry provider was examined in the case of M/s

Goldstar (Pvt) Ltd.”

2. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not applying Rule 46A of the IT Rules 1962 for cross

examine of the Shri Mukesh Chokshi”

3. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred considering the deduction u/s54F is allowable.”

2.

At the outset the ld. AR of the assessee pointed out that the tax effect in this appeal is below Rs.10.00 lakhs and further submitted that in view of the CBDT Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 brought out by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the appeal was not maintainable and be dismissed. The ld. DR also agreed to the submission of the ld. AR.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

ITO Vs Smt. Sabana Mohd. Ahmed Rangari We find from the records before us that the tax involved in the disputed issue is below Rs.10 Lacs and therefore, in view of the circular no 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 no appeals should be filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal which has tax effect of Rs. 10.00 lacs or less and this circular is also applicable retrospectively to all pending appeals.

The relevant extract the said CBDT Circular (Supra) is as under:- “This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”

4.

Considering the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is therefore dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →