Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 108395 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
04-07-2023
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
H
Next Hearing Date
04-07-2023
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
09-04-2023
Judgement Text
1 ITA 1187/Mum/202323 Keyur Dilip Parekh THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1187 /Mum/23 (Assessment year 2012-13) Income-tax Officer-41(3)(2) Kautilya Bhavan, Room No.713 7 th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 051 vs KEYUR DILIP PAREKH 1701, Divyam Residency Mumbai Malad East S.O. Mumbai-400 097 PAN : AOGPP0481C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Milind Joshi, CA Department represented by Smt. Usha Gaikwad Sr.AR Date of hearing 05-07-2023 Date of pronouncement 05-07-2023 O R D E R PER : MS PADMAVATHY S. (AM) This appeal by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi)(in short, ‘CIT(A)’) dated 10/02/2023 for A.Y. 2012-13 which was filed against the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) dated 01.12.2021 by National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). 2. During the course of hearing, it is noticed that the tax effect to the impugned appeal is Rs.65,546/- and therefore the bench raised query whether the appeal is sustainable on the ground of monetary limit for filing appeal before the Tribunal as 2 ITA 1187/Mum/202323 Keyur Dilip Parekh prescribed by the CBDT vide Circular No. 3 dated 11.07.2018 as amended by Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8 th August, 2019. Both the parties before us agreed that the current appeal should be considered in the light of the above Circular and decided accordingly. 3. We notice that CBDT vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8 th August, 2019 amended the tax effect monetary limits for filing the appeal before the Tribunal whereby the limit was enhanced to Rs.50,00,000 from Rs.20,00,000 i.e. if the tax effect does not exceed the said monetary limits, appeals shall not be filed. We further notice that in para 4 of Circular No. 3 dated 11.07.2018 it is stated that "tax effect" in the case of penalty orders, will mean quantum of penalty deleted or reduced in the order to be appealed against. In the appeal under consideration the penalty deleted is Rs.65,546/- which is below the specified monetary limits. We also notice that the present appeal does not fall under exceptions as mentioned in para 10 of Circular No. 3 dated 11.07.2018. In view of these discussions, we dismiss the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the tax effect is below the monetary limit as per the CBDT circulars referred herein above. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 05/07/2023. (VIKAS AWASTHY) (PADMAVATHY S) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dt : 05 th July, 2023 Pavanan 3 ITA 1187/Mum/202323 Keyur Dilip Parekh प्रतितिति अग्रेतििCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अिीिार्थी/The Appellant , 2. प्रतिवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त CIT 4. तवभागीय प्रतितिति, आय.अिी.अति., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाइि/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// Asstt. Registrar / Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Mumbai Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on 05/07 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 07/07 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM/AM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order. 11. Dictation Pad is enclosed Yes
AI Insights
The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which pertained to a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty in question was Rs. 65,546, which was contested by the Revenue. However, during the proceedings, it was determined that the tax effect of the penalty was below the monetary threshold for filing appeals as specified by the CBDT. Both parties agreed that the appeal should be considered in light of the CBDT circulars, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the monetary limit.
