Serai Export P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA NO.2448/Mum/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that an appeal by the Revenue is not maintainable where the tax effect involved is below the monetary limit prescribed for appeals to the Tribunal by the CBDT's instructions, and the Tribunal dismisses the Revenue's appeal on that basis without reaching the merits. The tax effect is determined from the assessed tax liability as computed after accounting for tax deducted at source, advance tax, self-assessment tax, and interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D, and the Revenue's failure to controvert the assessee's computation of that figure is treated as accepting it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
DCIT(OSD)-2(3), M/s Serai Export Pvt. Ltd.
Room No.552, बनाम 423, Himalaya House, बनाम/ 5th floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 79, Mata Ramabai M.K. Road, Vs. Ambedkar Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (राजःव /Revenue) (िनधा[ǐरती /Assessee) P.A. No.AAACS8252M
राजःव कȧ ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Neil Philip-DR िनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से / Assessee by) Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / 13/01/2015 Date of Hearing : घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / 13/01/2015 Date of Pronouncement : आदे श / O R D E R
PER JOGINDER SINGH (Judicial Member):
The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09/01/2013 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, on the ground that the ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the investment which do not yield exempt income while deciding the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act overlooking the fact that with effect from
2 M/s Serai Export Pvt. Ltd
01/06/2001, setting aside the issue or the order is not permissible as per the amended provision, ignoring the provision of section 250(4) of the Act.
2. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav, contended that the tax effect in the impugned appeal is below prescribed monetary limit. The assessee furnished the working of tax effect by submitting that it is merely Rs.77,662/-. This factual assertion was not controverted by the Revenue.
2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above assertion, as contended by the ld. counsel and not controverted by the Revenue, the Assessing Officer assessed the income u/s 115JB at Rs.2,12,81,728/- on which the tax liability was raised at Rs.46,006/-. After the considering the TDS of Rs.4,10,264/-, advanced tax of Rs.19,25,000/- and self assessment of Rs.29,950/- and even considering the interest u/s 234B at Rs.11,893/- and Rs.68,277/- u/s 234C and Rs.590/- u/s 234D of the Act, the total tax liability comes to Rs.2,30,427/- which is below the monetary prescribe limit for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The CBDT instruction no.3 of 2011 dated 09/02/2011 discussed in 332 ITR 23-25 (statute) and CIT vs Sevak Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.396 of 2013) order dated 22/03/2013 from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and also CIT vs Virendra and Company (2012) 77 DTR 210 (Bom) and instruction No.5 dated 10/07/2014, issued 3 M/s Serai Export Pvt. Ltd
by CBDT, this appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable. We have gone through the CBDT Instruction No.5/2014 dated 10/7/2014 issued on 10/7/2014 F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-IT(PT) wherein the monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal is Rs.4.00 lacs, before the Hon'ble High Court Rs.10.00 lacs u/s. 260A, and before the Hon'ble Apex Court the prescribed monetary limit is Rs.25.00 lacs. The view taken in the case of M/s Sesso Fashions Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.1680/Mum/2013), we find merit in the assertion of the ld. counsel for the assessee. 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 ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 13/01/2015.
आदे श कȧ घोषणा Ǒदनांकः 13/01/2015 को कȧ गई ।
Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सदःय / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ûयाियक सदःय / JUDICIAL MEMBER
मुंबई Mumbai; Ǒदनांक Dated : 13/01/2015 f{x~{tÜ? P.S/.िन.स.
आदे श कȧ ूितिलǒप अमेǒषत/Copy षत of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant
2. ू×यथȸ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai.
4. आयकर आयुƠ / CIT(A)- , Mumbai
5. ǒवभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ ार BY ORDER, 4 M/s Serai Export Pvt. Ltd
स×याǒपत ूित //True Copy//
उप/ उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण, मुब ं ई / ITAT, Mumbai
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free