ITO 8(3)(4), MUMBAI V. WEST COAST CONTAINERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 8924/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3757 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI , , !' !' !' !' # $% # $% # $% # $% , ,, , & & & & ' ' ' ' BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 8924/MUM./2010 ( &) * '+* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200607 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD8(3)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN 101, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 .. ,- / APPELLANT ) V/S M/S. WEST COAST CONTAINERS P. LTD. 75, NEHRU ROAD, PLOT NO.1 VILE PARLE (E), MUMBAI 400 099 .... ./,- / RESPONDENT , . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AAACW1387M ' 1 2 / REVENUE BY : MR. PAWAN VED &) *3# 1 2 / ASSESSEE BY : NONE )' 1 # / DATE OF HEARING 15.05.2013 $ 45+ 1 # / DATE OF ORDER 15.05.2013 $ $ $ $ / ORDER # $% # $% # $% # $% , ,, , & & & & 6 6 6 6 / PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE CHA LLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13 TH OCTOBER 2010, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)XVIII, MUMBAI, FOR THE QUANT UM OF ASSESSMENT M/S. WEST COAST CONTAINERS P. LTD. 2 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200607. 2. BEFORE US, AS ADMITTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE DISPUTED ADDITION IN THIS CASE IS ` 6,17,000 AND, THEREFORE, THE TAX EFFECT IS ADMITTEDLY LESS THAN ` 3,00,000. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE, WE FIND THAT AS PER CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011, DATED 9 TH FEBRUARY 2011, THE APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAN BE FILED BY THE R EVENUE, WHEN THE TAX EFFECT EXCEEDS THE MONITORY LIMIT OF ` 3,00,000. 5. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/ S MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF), [2009] 318 ITR 149 (BOM.) HELD AS FO LLOWS:- THE CIRCULAR DATED MAY 15, 2008 IN GENERAL AND PAR AGRAPH (5) THEREOF IN PARTICULAR LAY DOWN THAT EVEN IF THE SAM E ISSUE, IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ASSESSEE, FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS IS INVOLVED, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT FILE APPEAL, IF THE TAX EFFEC T IS LESS THAN ` 4 LAKHS. IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN IF THE QUESTION OF LAW IS OF RECURRING NATURE, THE REVENUE IS NOT EXPECTED TO FILE APPEALS IN SUCH CASES, IF THE TAX IMPACT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT FIXE D BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. THE BOARD HAS ALSO ISSUED A CIRCULAR ON JUNE 5, 2007, DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT TO EXAMINE ALL AP PEALS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT ON A CASE TO CASE BASIS WITH FURTH ER DIRECTION TO WITHDRAW CASES WHEREIN THE CRITERIA OF MONETARY LIM ITS AS PER THE PREVAILING INSTRUCTION ARE NOT SATISFIED, UNLESS TH E QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED OR RAISED IN APPEAL OR REFERRED TO THE HIG H COURT FOR OPINION IS OF A RECURRING NATURE REQUIRED TO BE SETTLED BY THE HIGHER COURT. THE CIRCULAR MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ON THE DATE OF ISS UANCE OF THE CIRCULAR, PREVAILING INSTRUCTIONS FIXING MONETARY L IMIT WILL HOLD GOOD EVEN FOR PENDING CASES. THE CIRCULAR DATED MAY 15, 2008 WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO PENDING CASES REQUIRING THE DEPARTMEN T TO WITHDRAW CASES WHEREIN THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE PRESC RIBED MONETARY LIMITS. THE CIRCULAR DATED MAY 15, 2008, WOULD BE A PPLICABLE TO CASES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT EITHER FOR ADMISSION OR FOR FINAL DISPOSAL AND IT IS BINDING ON THE REVENUE. M/S. WEST COAST CONTAINERS P. LTD. 3 6. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT IN THE JUDGMENT IN CIT V/S PITHWA ENGINEERING WORKS, [ 2005] 276 ITR 519 (BOM.), AND THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN M/S. P. S. JAIN & CO., [2011] 335 ITR 591 (DEL.). APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN IN THESE CASE LAWS TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE REVENUES APP EAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 7. 3 #7 ' 1 3 ) # 8 9 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. $ 1 45+ : ;)7 15 TH MAY 2013 5 1 < 9 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH MAY 2013 SD/- RAJENDRA SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- # # # # $% $% $% $% & & & & AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, ;) ;) ;) ;) DATED: 14 TH MAY 2013 $ 1 .&#= >=+# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) &) *3# / THE ASSESSEE; (2) ' / THE REVENUE; (3) ? () / THE CIT(A); (4) ? / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) ='B< .&#&) , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6)