ACIT 25(3), MUMBAI vs. MIHIR BUILDERS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8690/MUM/2010Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 December 2015AY 2004-054 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 held that CBDT circulars are binding on revenue authorities. Since the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order cancelling a penalty of Rs. 5,31,891/-. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri Beharilal
Hearing: 28.12.2015Pronounced: 28.12.2015

Per B R Baskaran, AM: The revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 30.9.2010 passed by Ld CIT(A)-35, Mumbai for assessment year 2004-05. 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.10 lakhs and accordingly submitted that the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable in view of the latest circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 issued by the CBDT. The Ld A.R submitted that the revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order of Ld CIT(A) cancelling the penalty of Rs.5,31,891/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly he

2 submitted that the quantum of penalty deleted by the Ld CIT(A) was less than the prescribed limit of Rs.10.00 lakhs.

3.

The ld. DR did not dispute the submissions made by the ld.AR.

4.

We notice that the revenue is contesting the decision of Ld CIT(A) in cancelling the penalty of Rs.5,31,891/- and hence the tax effect involved on the above said disputed amount works out to less than Rs.10 lakhs. Recently the CBDT has issued a circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 prescribing new monetary limits for preferring appeals against the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) before the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the circular cited above reads as under: “F No 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt) Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board Direct Taxes Circular No. 21/2015 New Delhi the 10th December, 2015 Sub :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.

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

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

For this purpose, "tax effect" means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issues against which appeal is intended to be filed (hereinafter referred to as "disputed issues"). However the tax will not include any interest thereon, except where chargeability of interest itself is in dispute. In case the chargeability of interest is the issue under dispute, the amount of interest shall be the tax effect. In cases where returned loss is reduced or assessed as income, the tax effect would include notional tax on disputed additions. In case of penalty orders, the tax effect will mean quantum of penalty deleted or reduced in the order to be appealed against. 5. ………. 6……… 7. …… 8. ……. 9. …..

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.” 11. …..” It can be noticed that the CBDT has further clarified that this new circular/instruction shall apply retrospectively, i.e., even to the pending appeals. It is also stated that the quantum of penalty deleted or reduced shall be considered for determining the monetary limits.

4

5.

It is well settled proposition that the circulars issued by the CBDT are binding on the Income Tax Authorities. For this proposition, one may gainfully refer to the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003)(177 Taxation 775) and Pradip J Pronounced accordingly on 28th Dec, 2015. घोषणध खुरे न्मधमधरम भें ददनधंकः 28th Dec, 2015 को की गई । (AMARJIT SINGH) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai: 28th Dec, 2015. व.नन.स./ SRL , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपप अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीरधथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- concerned 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT concerned 4. ववबधगीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई /

5.

DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned गधर्ा पधईर / Guard file. 6. आदेशधनुसधय/ BY ORDER,सहधमक ऩंजीकधय (Asstt.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →