The ITO 8 (1) 3, Mumbai v. M/s. Edit Systems Pvt. Ltd
[Citation -2016-LL-1019-146]

Citation 2016-LL-1019-146
Appellant Name The ITO 8 (1) 3, Mumbai
Respondent Name M/s. Edit Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Court ITAT-Mumbai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 19/10/2016
Assessment Year 2006-07
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags tax effect • monetary limit • dismissing the appeal in limine
Bot Summary: Ashish Gatagat Date of Hearing: 19/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 19/10/2016 ORDER PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 27/01/2012 passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals)-16, Mumbai for the assessment year 2006-07. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 3,42,387/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in respect of Sundry Balance written off by the assessee amounting to Rs. 10,17,198/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to prove the allowability of the impugned deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s.36(2) of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act in respect of Sundry Balance written off by the assessee amounting to Rs. 10,17,198/- without appreciating the fact that the basic condition laid down u/s 36(2) had not been fulfilled by the assessee and therefore, the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted 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. The Ld. DR fairly admitted that the tax effect in department s appeal is below Rs.10 Lakhs, 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. 1384/MUM/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 ITO 8 (1) 3, M/s. Edit Systems Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 206, 2nd Floor, 101, 1st Floor, Anmol CHS Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, French Bridge, Opera House, Mumbai- 400 020. Vs. Mumbai- 400 007. PAN- AAACE6541K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri. Nitin Waghmode Respondent by : Shri. Ashish Gatagat Date of Hearing: 19/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 19/10/2016 ORDER PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by revenue against order dated 27/01/2012 passed by Ld CIT(Appeals)-16, Mumbai for assessment year 2006-07. 2. revenue has challenged impugned order on following effective grounds:- 1. "On facts and circumstances of case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty of Rs. 3,42,387/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. 2 ITA No. 4854/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 2. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act in respect of Sundry Balance written off by assessee amounting to Rs. 10,17,198/- without appreciating fact that assessee had failed to prove allowability of impugned deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s.36(2) of Act. 3. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act in respect of Sundry Balance written off by assessee amounting to Rs. 10,17,198/- without appreciating fact that basic condition laid down u/s 36(2) had not been fulfilled by assessee and therefore, assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of Act. 3. At outset, Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted 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. 4. Ld. DR fairly admitted that tax effect in department s appeal is below Rs.10 Lakhs, 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 19th October, 2016 3 ITA No. 4854/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 19/10/2016 Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. ( CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Pramila ITO 8 (1) 3, Mumbai v. M/s. Edit Systems Pvt. Ltd
Report Error