The ITO (IT)-3(1), Mumbai v. Surindersingh D. Kambow
[Citation -2016-LL-1004-15]

Citation 2016-LL-1004-15
Appellant Name The ITO (IT)-3(1), Mumbai
Respondent Name Surindersingh D. Kambow
Court ITAT-Mumbai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 04/10/2016
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags tax effect • monetary limit • dismissing the appeal in limine
Bot Summary: Suman Kumar Respondent by : None Date of Hearing: 04/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 04/10/2016 ORDER PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 10/01/2014 passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals)-10, Mumbai for the assessment year 2009-10. The revenue has challenged the impugned order on following effective grounds:- 1. b. The builder cannot alter the BMC s approved plan without getting prior permission. We notice that the tax effect in this case is below Rs.10,00,000/- and as per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, the present appeal is not maintainable. Ld. Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the tax effect in this case is below Rs. 10 lacs. We find that the issue raised in appeal does not fall under any of the exceptions specified in para 8 of the Circular. Since, it has been specifically clarified in the Circular aforesaid that the instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals; the present appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA No. 4854/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO (IT)- 3 (1), Mr. Surindersingh D. Kambow, Room No. 114, 1st Floor, B/4, Indu Park, 4, Bangakow, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, N. Datta Marg, Andheri (W), N.M.Road, Mumbai- 400 038. Vs. Mumbai- 400 053. PAN- AFFPK5876G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri. Suman Kumar Respondent by : None Date of Hearing: 04/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 04/10/2016 ORDER PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by revenue against order dated 10/01/2014 passed by Ld CIT(Appeals)-10, Mumbai for assessment year 2009-10. 2. revenue has challenged impugned order on following effective grounds:- 1. "On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing A.O to allow claim of assessee u/s 54F without appreciating fact that; 2 ITA No. 4854/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 a. flats are still under construction and there is no evidence to suggest that two flats constitute one house property. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate ratio laid down by Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of K C Kaushik vs. PB Rane Fifth ITO 84 CTR 62 wherein it was clearly concluded that if assessee purchases two house properties, he can claim exemption u/s 54 against any one of properties. b. builder cannot alter BMC s approved plan without getting prior permission. 3. We notice that tax effect in this case is below Rs.10,00,000/- and as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, present appeal is not maintainable. Ld. Departmental Representative fairly admitted that tax effect in this case is below Rs. 10 lacs. 4. We find that issue raised in appeal does not fall under any of exceptions specified in para 8 of Circular. Since, it has been specifically clarified in Circular aforesaid that instruction will apply retrospectively to all pending appeals; present appeal filed by revenue is not maintainable. We, therefore, dismiss same in limine. Order pronounced in open court on 04th October, 2016 Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 04/10/2016 3 ITA No. 4854/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 /Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2.The Respondent. 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Pramila ITO (IT)-3(1), Mumbai v. Surindersingh D. Kambow
Report Error