ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI V. ANURADHA V. SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 709/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75876 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'SMC' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 709/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) INCOME TAX OFFICER - 14(1)(3) MRS. ANURADHA V. SHAH 2ND FLOOR, EARNEST HOUSE 95-B, MEGHDOOT, 1ST FLOOR NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021 VS. N.S. ROAD, MARINE DRIVE MUMBAI 400002 PAN - AAFPS3769P APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI AIRIJU JAIKARAN RESPONDENT BY: SHRI NITESH JOSHI DATE OF HEARING: 05.03.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.03.2014 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-25, MUMBAI AND IT PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2009-10. 2. ADMITTEDLY, THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS T HAN ` 1,00,000/-. THEREFORE, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE REVENUE TO POINT O UT THAT THE CASE FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3 D ATED 09.02.2011 SO AS TO FILE AN APPEAL DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN ` 1,00,000/-. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT IT IS A RECURRING I SSUE AND, THEREFORE, THE TAX EFFECT WOULD BE MORE THAN THE STIPULATED AMOUNT. HO WEVER, THE AUTHORISATION MEMO OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X DOES NOT CONTAIN THE REASONS TO SHOW THAT THE PERMISSION TO PREFER A N APPEAL WAS GRANTED ON THE CONSIDERATION THAT IT FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTIO N PROVIDED IN THE CIRCULAR. 3. THE LEARNED D.R. WAS DIRECTED TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, TO PROVE THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAD TAKEN A CONSCIOUS DECI SION IN FILING THE APPEAL DESPITE THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIONS (SUPRA). TI LL DATE THE LEARNED D.R. COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CO NTENTION. ITA NO. 709/MUM/2014 MRS. ANURADHA V. SHAH 2 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL, THOUGH DESERVED TO BE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS CONTRARY TO THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSU ED BY CBDT, EVEN ON MERITS THE REVENUE HAS NO CASE AND IN FACT THE ASSE SSEE IS ENTITLED TO APPROPRIATE RELIEF IF THE FACTS ARE PROPERLY APPREC IATED. IN THIS REGARD HE FILED A PAPER BOOK. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN VOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE STIPULATED LIMIT AND, THEREFORE, IT IS FOR THE REVENUE TO PROVE THE SPECIAL REASONS FOR WHICH AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION IN THE AUTHORISATION MEMO, I AM OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED ON TH E LIMITED GROUND THAT IT IS CONTRARY TO THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY CBDT, WHI CH ARE BINDING UPON THE APPELLANT/AO. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH MARCH, 2014. SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 12 TH MARCH, 2014 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 25, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 14, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, SMC BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.