ITO 32(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. HIMANSHU N SHAH (HUF), MUMBAI

At the outset, it was brought to our notice that the tax effect in the respective appeal is below prescribed monetary limit. This factual matrix was not controverted by the respective ld. DR. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the tax effect in the respective appeal is below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs.10 lakh.

2.2. In view of the fact that the tax effect in the respective 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.:-

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/-, consequently, these appeals of the Revenue are not maintainable. Therefore, in view of uncontroverted contention of the ld. DR and the aforementioned circular of CBDT, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as not maintainable. Finally, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as not maintainable. This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 21/12/2015.