DCIT CEN CIR 22, V. ASHAPURA INTERNATIONAL LTD,

MA 36/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0660 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI .. , !'# $ $ $ $ % &' , ( !'# !) BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI. SHRI AMIT SHU KA, JM *$*$ $'+ 36 /MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 6720/MUM/2010 ( (+ . $/. (+ . $/. (+ . $/. (+ . $/. / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 22, ROOM NO. 403, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. + + + + / VS. M/S ASHAPURA INTERNATIONAL LTD., 278, JEEVAN UDYOG BLDG., 3 RD FLOOR, D.N. ROAD, FOR, MUMBAI 400 001. #1 !./ PAN : AABCA2760K ( 12 / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( 3412 / RESPONDENT ) 12 5 6 ! / APPLICANT BY : SHRI MOHIT JAIN 3412 5 6 ! / RESPONDENT BY : MRS. HARSHA JOSHI !+$ 5 / // / DATE OF HEARING : 21 -6-13 78/ 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :21 -6-13 '& / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : BY THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE REVENUE IS SEEKING R ECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE ALLEGED TO HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DTD. 31-8-2012 PASSED IN ITA NO. 6720/MUM2010 FOR A.Y. 2005-06. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE R EVENUE IN THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR A. Y. 2005-06 WAS DISMISSED BY THE MA 36/MUM/2013 2 TRIBUNAL AT A THRESHOLD TREATING THE SAME AS NOT MA INTAINABLE KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WA S LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS. 3 LAKHS FIXED BY THE CBDT IN THE INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011 DTD. 9-2-2011 FOR FILING OF APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND TH E SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL BEING CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNA TAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. B. SUMANGALA DEVI RENDERED SUBSEQUENTLY ON 11-10-2012, THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DTD. 31-8-2012 (SUPRA). IT IS, HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT THE SAID DECISION WAS RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSING TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BY TREATING THE SAME AS NOT MAINTAINABLE RELYING ON THE DECISIO N OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADHUKAR INAMDAR (HUF), 318 ITR 149 (BOM) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE CBDT INSTRUCTION FIXING ANY MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEAL WOULD APPLY EVEN FOR THE PENDING CASES. THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE THUS WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY TREATING THE SAME AS NOT MAINTAINABLE R ELYING ON THE BINDING DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND, IN OUR OPINI ON, IT CANNOT BE SAID, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF SMT. B. SUMANGALA DEVI (SUPRA) AND THAT TOO RENDERED SUBSEQUENTLY TAKING C ONTRARY VIEW, THAT THERE IS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL D TD. 31-8-2012. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE AND DISMISS THE SAME. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISS. APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9 : #$ 5 *$*$ $'+ 9 5 ;< ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21-06-2013. . '& 5 78/ ='+: 21 -0 6 -2013 8 5 SD/- SD/- ( AMIT SHUKLA ) ( P.M. JAGTAP ) !'# / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( !'# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; ='+ DATED 21/ 06/2013 $.(+.!./ RK , SR. PS MA 36/MUM/2013 3 '& 5 3(%* N*/ '& 5 3(%* N*/ '& 5 3(%* N*/ '& 5 3(%* N*// COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 12 / THE APPELLANT 2. 3412 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. O () / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED , MUMBAI 4. O / CIT CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. *$R 3((+ , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI A BENCH 6. S. T / GUARD FILE. '&+! '&+! '&+! '&+! / BY ORDER, !4* 3( //TRUE COPY// U U U U/ // /!; !; !; !; ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI