, - , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI ,!' , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND ITA NO.1280/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DCIT-2(1), ROOM NO.561, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.RAOD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. M/S GAWANDE CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. 801, MAHALAXMI CHAMBERS, 22, BHULABHAI DESAI ROAD, MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI-400026 / REVENUE / ASSESSEE P.A. NO. ABCG3865F $%& / REVENUE BY SHRI A.K.DHONDIAL-CIT-DR $%& / ASSESSEE BY NONE / DATE OF HEARING 08/06/2015 & / DATE OF ORDER: 09/06/2015 &/ O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/12/2013, OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY, MUMBAI, ON THE GROUND THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NET INTE REST EXPENSES BE CONSIDERED IN DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH ITA NO.1280/MUM/2014 M/S GAWANDE CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD 2 RULE 8D WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE INTE REST EXPENSES DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT CANNOT BE LINKED WITH THE INTEREST INCOME. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF ISSUANCE OF RPAD NOTICE ON 28/05/2015. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOTHING TO SAY, THEREFORE, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PROCEED EX-PARTY QUA THE ASSESSEE AND TEND TO DISPOSE OFF T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVA ILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. DR, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVE D AT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WITH OUT GOING IN TO MUCH DELIBERATION, I FOUND THAT THE INC OME ASSESSED IS RS.7,49,080/- AND THE INCOME TAX DEMAND IS NIL AS IS MENTIONED AT PAGE-1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITSELF. THIS FACTUAL ASPECT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF TH E LD. DR WITH RESPECT TO MAINTAINABILITY OF THE APPEAL ON TH E BASIS OF BELOW PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT. THE LD. DR CONSEN TED THAT THE APPEAL IS DEFINITELY BELOW THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2.2. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN T HE APPEAL IS BELOW PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT AS CONTAINED IN CBD T INSTRUCTION NO.3/2011 DATED 09/02/2011, FURTHER INSTRUCTION NO.5/2014 (F NO.279/MISC./142/2007-IT(P T) ITA NO.1280/MUM/2014 M/S GAWANDE CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD 3 DATED 10/07/2014. THE CBDT REVISED THE MONETARY LIM IT FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE VARIOUS AUTHORITIES/CO URTS AND ADVISED/DIRECTED THE DEPARTMENT NOT TO FILE APPEAL IN THE CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE FOLL OWING MONETARY LIMITS, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE REVISED MONETARY LIMIT IS AS UND ER:- SL. NO. APPEALS I N INCOME TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS.) 1. BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 4,00,000/ - 2. U/S 260 A BEFORE HIGH COURT 10,00,000/ - 3. BEFORE SUPREME COURT 25,00,000/ - AS PER THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTION, THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.4,00,000/-, CONSEQUENTLY, CONSIDERI NG THE DECISION FROM THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PITHWA ENGINEERING WORKS (276 ITR 519) (BOM ) , THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THEREFO RE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. FINALLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN T HE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH THE S IDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 08 TH JUNE 2015. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) !' / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 09/06/2015 F{X~{T? P.S / ! ITA NO.1280/MUM/2014 M/S GAWANDE CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD 4 &$)!*+,&+-* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '#$%& / THE APPELLANT 2. '(%& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ) * ( '#$ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. ) ) * / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -./ ' , ) '#$ ' 1 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /2 3$ / GUARD FILE. & / BY ORDER, (-# ' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI