ACIT CC.45, MUMBAI V. RAJESH R. MEGHANI, MUMBAI

ITA 4548/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1588 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOMAGYAN PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D C JAIN
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.4548/M/2009 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R S PADVEKAR, JM & SHRI B RAMAKOTAIAH, AM ITA NO. 4548/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR 2007-08) THE ASST COMMR.OF INCOME TAX CC 45, MUMBAI VS RAJESH R MEGHANI FLAT NO.13 VANDANA CHS PLOT NO.3 & 4 PESTOM SAGAR ROAD,CHEMBUR MUMBAI 89 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN AACPN9544P ASSESSEE BY: SHRI D C JAIN REVENUE BY: SMT SOMAGYAN PAL O R D E R PER R S PADVEKAR: IN THIS APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED THE I MPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A)III FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 DATED 27.5.2009. 2 THE CBDT HAS ISSUED A LATEST CIRCULAR BEING NO.F 279/MIS.142/2007- ITJ DATED 15.5.2008 IN WHICH A REFERENCE OF THE INS TRUCTIONS/CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE BOARD FROM TIME TO TIME IS GIVEN AND IT IS D IRECTED THAT NO APPEAL SHOULD BE FILED IN THE TRIBUNAL WHERE THE TAX EFFEC T IS LESS THAN RS. 2 LACS. IN THE SAID CIRCULAR, EXPRESSION TAX EFFECT HAS B EEN EXPLAINED AND THE TAX DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY INTEREST ELEMENT. 3 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PITHWA ENGINEER LTD (276 I TR 519) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ZOEB Y. TOPIWALA( 284 ITR 379), THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE INSTRUCTIONS/CIRCULARS ISS UED BY THE CBDT AND IT IS HELD THAT CIRCULARS/INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE B OARD ARE BINDING ON THE 2 ITA NO.4548/M/2009 TAX AUTHORITIES AND IF THE TAX/REVENUE EFFECT IS BELOW THE MONITORY LIMIT FIXED BY THE BOARD, THEN THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAI NABLE. 4 AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS TH AN RS. 2 LACS AND HENCE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE; ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 5 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 23 RD DAY OF JUNE 2010 IN OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (B RAMAKOTAIAH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R S PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 23RD, JUNE 2010 RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI