ASST CIT CEN CIR 2, V. HOTEL MAYFAIR P.LTD,

MA 708/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0310 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 12

Judgement Text

M.A. NO.708/M/12 , INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCHE MUMBAI . . , / !' , ! . . SHRI B.R.MITTAL, JM AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.708/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5915/MUM/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 R. NO.904 9 TH FLOOR, OLD CGO BUILDING ANNEXE, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 VS M/S HOTEL MAYFAIR PVT. LTD. HOTEL HERITAGE BLDG., SAINT SAVTA MARG, BYCULLA MUMBAI-400027 PAN-AAACH1782P (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI MOHIT JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NITESH JOSHI & VIPUL MODY DATE OF HEARING : 05-04-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-04-2013 PER RAJENDRA, A.M VIDE ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA)NO. 708/MUM/ 12 FILED U/S.254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961(ACT),ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) SUBMITTED THAT MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL,DATED 25.07.2012,SHOULD BE RE CTIFIED. IN THIS CASE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO WAS DISMISSED BY US,AS THE TAX-EFFECT INVOLVED WAS MUCH LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT FOR FILING SECOND APPEAL. 2. IN THE MA AO SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE WAS SQUARELY C OVERED UNDER THE EXCEPTIONS SPECIFIED IN INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 DT. 09.02.2011,ISSUED BY C ENTRAL BOARD DIRECT TAXES (CBDT),THAT PARA NO. 8 OF THE INSTRUCTION DISCUSSED THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF CBDT MATTER HEARD TO BE CONTESTED ON MERITS NOTWITH STAN-DING THE TAX EFFECT.BEFORE US DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT MATTE R SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE BASIS OF TAX INVOLVE,THAT CASE WAS COVERED BY THE E XCEPTION CLAUSE OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED ON 25.07.2012. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MA TTER BEFORE US. 2.1. IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF DR THAT TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE WAS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY LIMIT BY THE C BDT, THAT IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL IT WAS NOT MENTIONED BY THE AO THAT THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERAT ION WAS COVERED BY THE EXCEPTIONS MENTIONED IN THE CIRCULAR,THAT BEFORE US DURING HEA RING ON 17.05.2012 DR HAD NOT ARGUED THAT CASE WAS COVERED BY THE EXCEPTIONAL CLAUSE. 2.3. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT M ISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE AO DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED.WE ARE AWARE THAT IN CERTA IN CIRCUMSTANCES, APPEAL FILED BY THE AO CAN BE HEARD EVEN IF TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE PRESCR IBED LIMITS. BUT, FOR SUCH EXCEPTIONAL CASES AO HAS TO MENTION THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND FA CTS RELATED TO A PARTICULAR CASE. AS STATED EARLIER, IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION NO EXCEPTI ON WAS MADE BY THE AO/ARGUED BY THE DR. AS A RESULT MA FILED BY THE AO STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH APRIL , 2013. M.A. NO.708/M/12 !# %&' ! ( *+ 5 TH MARCH, 2013 & , SD/- SD/- ( . . /B.R.MITTAL) ( !' / RAJENDRA ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, * / DATE: 5 TH APRIL, 2013 S. S. KUMAR !# !# !# !# -. -. -. -. 0!'. 0!'. 0!'. 0!'. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE 1.-. //TRUE COPY// !#* !#* !#* !#* / BY ORDER, 2 22 2 / 3 3 3 3 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI M.A. NO.708/M/12