Commissioner of Income-tax-8, Mumbai v. ETC Network Limited - 2020-LL-0304-49

Citation	2020-LL-0304-49
Appellant Name	Commissioner of Income-tax-8, Mumbai
Respondent Name	ETC Network Limited
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	04/03/2020
Assessment Year	2004-05
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	prescribed limit • tax effect
Bot Summary:	While Income Tax Appeal No.220 of 2012 arises out of order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22.07.2011 passed in I.T.A.No. 4764/Mum/2010 for the assessment year 2004-05, Income Tax Appeal No.1251 of 2011 arises out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 06.08.2010 passed in I.T.A.No. On the last occasion i.e. on 11.02.2020, this Court directed learned standing counsel to obtain instructions from the departmental authority as to whether Revenue would pursue the appeal or not in terms of Circular No.17 of 2019 of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 08.08.2019 since admittedly the tax effect in both the appeals are below the prescribed limit in terms of the aforesaid Circular. Today when the matter is called upon, learned standing counsel Revenue submit that they have not received any instructions in that regard despite communicating with the departmental authorities. Be that as it may, it is seen that in Income Tax Appeal No.220 of 2012, the disputed tax claim is Rs.30,75,953. 00 whereas in Income Tax Appeal No.1251 of 2011, it is Rs.32,64,412. In view of the CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019, both the appeals would stand dismissed on withdrawal subject to the condition that if the Revenue finds that the appeals fall within any of the exceptions under the said Circular, it would be open to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeals.

IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.220 OF 2012 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1251 OF 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai Appellant Vs. M/s. ETC Network Limited Respondent Mr. Arvind Pinto a/w. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant. Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah for Respondent. CORAM UJJAL BHUYAN, MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE MARCH 04, 2020 P.C. Heard Mr. Arvind Pinto and Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel Revenue for appellant and Mr. Sanjiv Shah, learned counsel for respondent - assessee. 2. While Income Tax Appeal No.220 of 2012 arises out of order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22.07.2011 passed in I.T.A.No.4764/Mum/2010 for assessment year 2004-05, Income Tax Appeal No.1251 of 2011 arises out of order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 06.08.2010 passed in I.T.A.No.138/Mum/2009 for assessment year 2004-05. 3. On last occasion i.e. on 11.02.2020, this Court directed learned standing counsel to obtain instructions from departmental authority as to whether Revenue would pursue appeal or not in terms of Circular No.17 of 2019 of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 08.08.2019 since admittedly tax effect in both appeals are below prescribed limit in terms of aforesaid Circular. 4. Today when matter is called upon, learned standing counsel Revenue submit that they have not received any instructions in that regard despite communicating with departmental authorities. 5. Be that as it may, it is seen that in Income Tax Appeal No.220 of 2012, disputed tax claim is Rs.30,75,953.00 whereas in Income Tax Appeal No.1251 of 2011, it is Rs.32,64,412.00, both below prescribed limit of Rs.1 crore. 6. In view of CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019, both appeals would stand dismissed on withdrawal subject to condition that if Revenue finds that appeals fall within any of exceptions under said Circular, it would be open to Revenue to seek revival of appeals. 7. Court fee to be refunded as per rules. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) Minal Parab Commissioner of Income-tax-8, Mumbai v. ETC Network Limited

Metadata

Judgment