ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI V. RAM LAMINATES (POONA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6157/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56230 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C G K NAIR
• Assessee Lawyers: JAIDEV
• Keywords: Depreciation; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. AND SHRI V. DU RGA RAO, J.M. ITA NOS. 6156 & 6157/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995-96 & 1996-97 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-10(1), APPELLANT AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 020. VS. M/S RAM LAMINATES (POONA) PVT. LTD., RESPONDENT RAM HOUSE, 4 GAIWADI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, S.V. ROAD, GOREGOAN (WEST) MUMBAI 400 062. (PAN AAACR5059D) APPELLANT BY : MR. C.G.K. NAIR RESPONDENT BY : MR. JAIDEV DATE OF HEARING : 13/12/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/12/2011 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.: THESE TWO APPEALS PERTAINING TO ONE ASSESSEE FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-2 0, MUMBAI. SINCE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE TWO APPEALS, THE SAM E WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND, THEREFORE, A COMMON ORDER IS PASSED F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND TH AT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IS L ESS THAN RS. 3 LAKHS AND THIS POSITION HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED EVEN BY THE LEARNED DR. AS PER THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011 ISSUED ON 09 /02/2011, THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL BY THE DEPAR TMENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN REVISED TO RS. 3 LAKHS. AS DECIDE D BY THE CBDT, ITA NO. 6156 & 6157/M/2010 RAM LAMINATES (POONA)P. LTD. 2 APPEALS SHALL NOT BE FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN CAS ES WHERE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED RS. 3 LAKHS. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADHUKAR INAMDAR (HUF) 318 ITR 149, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HA S HELD THAT CBDT INSTRUCTION FIXING ANY MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILI NG THE APPEAL WOULD APPLY EVEN FOR THE PENDING CASES. KEEPING IN VIEW T HE SAID DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE BOARD INS TRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011 DATED 09/02/2011, WE HOLD THAT THE PRESENT APP EALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT INVOLVING TAX EFFECT OF LESS THAN 3 LAKH S IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND THE SAME ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED . 3. EVEN ON MERIT ALSO, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO , AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION IN BOTH THE APPEALS, I S NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR THE REASON THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATIO N MADE BY THE AO HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A), WHEN THE APPEALS FI LED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (V. DU RGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 16 TH DECEMBER, 2011 KV ITA NO. 6156 & 6157/M/2010 RAM LAMINATES (POONA)P. LTD. 3 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. 4) THE CIT CONCERNED. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, D BENCH, I.T .A.T., MUMBAI. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., MUMBAI.