I.T.O. 25(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. KAUSHIK KRISHNARAJ BHAGTA, MUMBAI

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee Shri Anil Thakrar, contended that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable as the tax effect is below prescribed monetary limit. This factual matrix was not controverted by Ms. Vinita Menon, ld. DR. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before us, the stand of the assessee is that the total income computed by the Assessing Officer is Rs.21,50,000/- on which the tax effect is below the prescribed limit of Rs.10 lakh. This factual matrix was consented to be correct by ld. DR. 2.2. In view of the fact that the tax effect in the appeal is below prescribed monetary limit, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable, 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.:-