ITA.NO.5741/MUM/2013 SOHANLAL M JAIN ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.5741/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 R.NO.27,6 TH FLOOR ASHAR I.T.PARK WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ROAD NO.16Z,THANE - 400 604 / VS. SOHANLAL M.JAIN B-68, FLAT NO.101, SECTOR1 SHANTI STAR BUILDING OPP.TMT BUS STOP MIRA ROAD(E) DISTT. THANE ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AHRPJ-4078-M ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY : VIMAL PUNMIYA,LD.AR RE VENUE BY : V.JUSTIN, LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 20/12/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17/01/2018 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR [AY] 2005-06 CONTEST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II [CIT(A)], MUMBAI, APPEAL NO. THN/CIT(A)-II/WD-2(1)/THN/263/2009-10 DATED 01/07/2013 QUA CERTAIN RELIEF PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ITA.NO.5741/MUM/2013 SOHANLAL M JAIN ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 2 ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), THANE [AO] U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 24/12/2009. 2. FACTS LEADING TO THE SAME ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 WHERE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ENHANCED BY RS.44,64,075 /-. THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITH PARTIAL SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/07/2013 WHERE THE QUANTUM A DDITIONS WERE RESTRICTED TO RS.20,76,291/- AND THE ASSESSEE WAS P ROVIDED WITH RELIEF OF RS.23,87,783/- BY LD. CIT(A). AGGRIEVED, THE REVENU E IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE [AR], AT THE OUTSET , DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE TAX EFFECT OF THE AD DITIONS BEING CONTESTED BY THE REVENUE IS LESS THAN RS.10 LACS AND THE SAME IS COVERED BY LOW TAX EFFECT CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10/12/2015 ISSUED BY CBDT. THE WORKING OF TAX EFFECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SAID CIRCULAR HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US WHICH WAS CONFRONTED TO LD. DR. TH E LD. DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THE SAME AND COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY EXCEP TIONS / RESTRICTIONS AS GIVEN IN THE SAID CIRCULAR. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAME. AS PER THE CITED CIRCULAR, NEW GUIDELINES OF MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING OF APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED, WHEREBY THE TAX EFFECT FOR FILING OF A PPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED AT MINIMUM OF RS.10 LAKHS. IN T HE SAID CIRCULAR, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CLARIFIED THAT THE SAID INSTR UCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO ALL THE PENDING APPEALS. THE SAI D PROPOSITION HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE RECE NT JUDGMENT TITLED ITA.NO.5741/MUM/2013 SOHANLAL M JAIN ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 3 AS DIT VS. S.R.M.B DAIRY FARMING (P) LIMITED [CIVIL AP PEAL NO. 19650 OF 2017 DATED 23/11/2017] . HENCE, WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN TERMS OF THE SAID CI RCULAR AND THEREFORE THE SAME STANDS DISMISSED IN LIMINE . 5. IN NUTSHELL, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COU RT ON 17 TH JANUARY,2018 SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARW AL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 17.01.2018 SR.PS:- THIRUMALESH ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. + / CIT CONCERNED 5. $&- , - , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI