ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI V. MILLENIUM STEEL, MUMBAI

ITA 1485/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3294 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 1485/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 THE ITO WARD - 23(1)(3), ROOM NO. 103, 1 ST FLOOR, C-10, PRATYANKSHAKAR BHAVAN, B.K.C., BANDRA(E), MUMBAI- 400051. VS. MILLENIUM STEEL, UNIT NO. 204, B WING, 2 ND FLOOR, PRAKIT INDS. ESTATE, COREGAON LINK ROAD (W), MULUND, MUMBAI- 400078. PAN- APEPS9812F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. SANJEEV JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. DARSHAN GANDHI DATE OF HEARING: 06/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06/06/2016 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST ORDER DATED 24/12/2012 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A)-33, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER O N FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL:- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS. 26,42,876/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. 2 ITA NO. 1485/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS BELOW 10,00,000/-. HENCE, AS PER TH E CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21 OF 2015, DATED 10/12/2015, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT M AINTAINABLE. 4. THE LD. DR FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT I N DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS BELOW 10 LAKHS, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN AP PEAL DOES NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS SPECIFIED IN PARA 8 OF THE CIRCU LAR. SINCE, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CLARIFIED IN THE CIRCULAR AFORESAID TH AT THE INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO ALL THE PENDING APPEALS; THE PRE SENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. WE, THEREFORE, DISMIS S THE SAME IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH JUNE, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( B.R.BASKARAN ) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 06/06/2016 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. !' , $ !'% , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. &' ( / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUM BAI PRAMILA