The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-31, Mumbai v. Gundencha Builders
[Citation -2020-LL-0205-41]

Citation 2020-LL-0205-41
Appellant Name The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-31, Mumbai
Respondent Name Gundencha Builders
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/02/2020
Assessment Year 2011-12
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags tax effect
Bot Summary: ORAL ORDER : 1 Heard Mr. Arvind Pinto, learned standing counsel Revenue for the Appellant and Ms. Aasifa Khan, learned counsel for the Respondent. 2 This Appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 against the order dated 24.08.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai G Bench, Borey 1/2 Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 10:49:26 spb/ 8itxa-1931-17.doc Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No. 6103/M/2014 for the assessment year 2011-12. 3 At the outset, Mr. Pinto, learned standing counsel Revenue, submits that the disputed tax amount in the present Appeal is Rs.60,60,700. 00 which is below the enhanced prescribed limit for filing of appeal before the High Court by Income Tax Department in terms of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. He submits that he has not received any instructions from the Department as to whether present appeal falls under any exception as provided in the said circular. 4 Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the disputed tax effect is below the prescribed limit as per the said circular the Appeal is dismissed on withdrawal. If the appeal falls within any of the exceptions carved out by the said circular, it will be open to the Appellant to seek revival of the appeal.


spb/ 8itxa-1931-17.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1931 OF 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Appellant. Tax-31, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra- Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai -62. V/s. Gundencha Builders, Respondent. 141, Gundecha House, Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400 062. Mr. Arvind Pinto, Advocate for Appellant. Ms. Aasifa Khan, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN AND MILIND N. JADHAV,JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 05, 2020. ORAL ORDER : 1 Heard Mr. Arvind Pinto, learned standing counsel Revenue for Appellant and Ms. Aasifa Khan, learned counsel for Respondent. 2 This Appeal has been preferred by Revenue under section 260A of Income Tax Act 1961 against order dated 24.08.2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai "G" Bench, Borey 1/2 Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 10:49:26 spb/ 8itxa-1931-17.doc Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No. 6103/M/2014 for assessment year 2011-12. 3 At outset, Mr. Pinto, learned standing counsel Revenue, submits that disputed tax amount in present Appeal is Rs.60,60,700.00 which is below enhanced prescribed limit for filing of appeal before High Court by Income Tax Department in terms of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. However, he submits that he has not received any instructions from Department as to whether present appeal falls under any exception as provided in said circular. 4 Be that as it may, having regard to fact that disputed tax effect is below prescribed limit as per said circular Appeal is dismissed on withdrawal. However, if appeal falls within any of exceptions carved out by said circular, it will be open to Appellant to seek revival of appeal. 5 Court fee paid may be refunded in terms of Rules. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) Borey 2/2 Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 10:49:26 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-31, Mumbai v. Gundencha Builder
Report Error