ACIT 20(1), MUMBAI vs. AMIRALI J. DOSSA, MUMBAI

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue on 9.2.2011 is against the order of the CIT (A)-31, Mumbai dated 8.1.2010 for the assessment year 2007-2008. 2. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the grounds raised by the Revenue which relate to the CIT (A)‟s decision in deleting the additions of Rs. 6,73,271/- made on account of „bogus commission‟ and Rs. 23,28,916/- made on account of „sale of old batteries not recorded‟. In this regard, he 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 Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn / not pressed.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.”

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.