No case shall be present in front of appellate tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs. 10 Lakhs, vide CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015. This order is retrospective in effect and pending appeals and orders below specified limit may be withdrawn/not pressed.- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai
case: ITO, Mumbai vs Vastu Kriti Enterprises Private Limited
ITA No. : 3795/Mum/2012 AY: 2010-11
Date of Order : 01-08-2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. : 3795/Mum/2012
Income Tax Officer Vastu Kirti Enterprises P Ltd,
Tax -21(3)(3), Shop No. 8, Opp Sadguru
Room No. 507, 5th Floor, Vs Terrace, Sion Koliwada,
Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai -400 022
M K Marg, PAN: AAACV1268J
Mumbai -400 020
Appellant by : Shri Sachchidanand Dube
Respondent by : Shri N K Bhat
Date of Hearing : 01-08-2016
Date of Order : 01-08-2016
PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM:
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the revenue against impugned order dated 12.03.2012, passed by CIT(A)- 32, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10, on the following grounds:-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 54F amounting to Rs.34,29,500/- while
computing the capital gain.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the fact of the present case are different form the case of Sushila N Jhaveri (107 ITD 321). In the present case the assessee are different form the case of Ms. Sushila N Jhaveri (107 ITD 321). In the present case the assessee purchased two adjacent units in the same locality in joint capacity and not two residential houses situated in different localities.
3. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored”.
2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the tax effect on the disputed issue raised by the revenue in its appeal is less than Rs.10 lakhs. In support, he filed following calculation of tax effect:-
|1||Denial of deduction u/s 54F of the Act from the Long Term Capital Gain income offered||34,29,500|
|2||Tax thereon @ 20% (since net taxable income after deduction would be less than Rs.10 lakhs, there would be no surcharge)||6,85,900|
|3||Add: EC @ 2% + S & HEC @ 1% of tax amount at Sr. No.2||20,577|
|4||Total tax effect||7,06,477|
3. After hearing both the parties, it is noticed that, the disputed addition on which the revenue has filed an appeal is less than Rs.10 lakhs. Ld. DR also admitted that the tax effect on the disputed addition in the impugned appeal is less than Rs.10 lakhs.
4. In view of the aforesaid fact that the tax effect in the impugned appeal is less than Rs.10 lakhs, accordingly, in the wake of CBDT’s Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015, we hold that the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable. Further it has also been clarified by the same circular that this monetary limit will apply on pending appeals also which is evident from para 10 of the impugned Circular, which reads as under:-
“10. This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending 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”.
Thus, the appeal of the revenue is treated as dismissed as non-maintainable.
5. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 1st August, 2016.
(B R BASKARAN) (AMIT SHUKLA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date: 1st August, 2016
1) The Appellant.
2) The Respondent.
3) The CIT –32, Mumbai.
4) The CIT –City -21, Mumbai
5) The D.R. “A” Bench, Mumbai.
6) Copy to Guard File.