ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI V. SIDDHIVINAYAK HOMES, MUMBAI

ITA 2066/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2319 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NITIN R WAGHMODE
• Assessee Lawyers: M P GUPTA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2066/M/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 2010) ITO - 12(1)(1), MUMBAI. / VS. M/S. SIDDHIVINAYAK HOMES, GROUND FLOOR, TARA MANSION, 11 TH KHETWADI MAIN ROAD, MUMBAI 400 004. ./ PAN : AAVFS8880K ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NITIN R. WAGHMODE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.P. GUPTA / DATE OF HEARING : 26.10.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.10.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 26.3.2014 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 23, MUMBAI DATED 11/12/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. 2. BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.21,81,135/ - U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED WORKING AND DEMONSTRATED THAT TOTAL TAX E FFECT IN THIS CASE IS BELOW RS. 10 LAKHS. THEREFORE, IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD COUNSEL THAT CONSIDERING THE LOW TAX EFFECT, THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 APPLIES TO THE APPEAL. 3. AFTER HEARING THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS O F THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US, WE FIND, THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS BELOW RS. 10 LAKHS. THEREFORE, THIS CASE IS COVERED BY THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015, DATED 10.12.2015 WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR THE PROPOSITIO N THAT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE WITH A TAX EFFECT OF RS. 10 LAKHS AND BELOW ARE TO BE EITHER DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS NOT MAINTAINABLE OR NOT 2 PRESSED BY THE REVENUE. CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSED SINCE, THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH OCTOBER, 2016. S D / - S D / - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 26.10 .2016 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / 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 . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI