Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh,
आदेश / O R D E R
The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29/01/2015 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. 2. At the outset, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that the tax effect in the present appeal is below
M/s Satyaprakash Builders Pvt. Ltd. prescribed monetary limit. This factual matrix was consented to be correct by the ld. DR, Shri A.K. Dhondial.
2.1. I have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. I note that the tax effect in the present appeal is below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs.10 lakh.
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.3/2011 dated 09/02/2011, further instruction No.5/2014 (F No.279/Misc./142/2007-IT(PT) dated 10/07/2014, the CBDT revised the monetary limit for filing the appeal before various Authorities/Courts vide CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015 (F No.279/Misc./142/2007-IT(PT), with retrospective effect and advised/directed the Department 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. 1. 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/-,
M/s Satyaprakash Builders Pvt. Ltd. consequently, this appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable. Therefore, in view of uncontroverted contention of the ld. DR with respect to prescribed monetary limit and the aforementioned circular of CBDT, 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 DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 04/01/2016.