ACIT CIR 21(1), MUMBAI vs. REKHA R. KULKARNI, MUMBAI

At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the grounds raised by the Revenue and mentioned that the tax effect in this appeal is below Rs. 10 lakhs and therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable. In support of his argument, he brought our attention to the recently issued CBDT Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 and submitted that the appeals filed by the Revenue with a tax effect of Rs. 10 lakhs and below are to be either dismissed by the Tribunal as not maintainable or not pressed by the Revenue. Referring to the above mentioned Board Circular No.21/2015, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to para 10 and submitted that the said monetary limitation of Rs. 10 lakhs applies to all the appeals filed by the Revenue retrospectively. Considering the significance of the said para 10 of the CBDT Circular (supra) is extracted as under:- “10. 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 Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn / not pressed.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.”

Considering the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue, wherein the tax effect is below the above stated tax limit of Rs. 10 lakhs, is dismissed as not maintainable.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. C.O. No.186/M/2013 (Arising out of I.T.A. No.5016/M/2012 (Assessment Year: 2009-2010)

This Cross Objection filed by the assessee 20.8.2013 and it arose from the appeal I.T.A. No.5016/M/2012 for the AY 2009-2010. While adjudicating the Revenue‟s appeal for the AY 2009-2010, we have dismissed the same on the reason of „low tax effect‟. Therefore, considering our decision given on the lead appeal of the Revenue, the Cross Objection raised by the assessee demands no specific adjudication since the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. We find that the case laws cited by the Ld Counsel for the assessee ie the judgment of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd [141 ITR 367] and the judgment of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Purbanchal Paribahan Gosthi [234 ITR 663] are distinguishable on facts. In these cases, the appeals by the Revenue are not dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of tax effect based on the CBDT Circular (supra). Otherwise, as per the Ld Counsel, there is no precedent in existence which is applicable to the facts of the present case against the dismissal of the CO as non-maintainable. Considering the same, the Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable.

In the result, Cross Objection raised by the assessee is dismissed.

Conclusively, two Revenue‟s appeals as well as the Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th January, 2016. (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 14.1.2016 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. 5. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड पाईर / Guard file. सत्मावऩत प्रनत ////