IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"D" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND
SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA no. 2197/Mum./2010
(Assessment Year : 200506)
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle8(3), Aayakar Bhavan
101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ....................... Appellant
v/s
Rishabh Investments P. Ltd.
A54, Marol MIDC, Andheri (E)
Mumbai 400 093
PAN AAAC2228D ................... Respondent
Revenue by : Mr. C.G.K. Nair
Assessee by : Mr. Kishore B. Phadke
Date of Hearing 24.05.2012 Date of Order 24.05.2012
ORDER
PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY
The present appeal preferred by the Revenue, is directed against
impugned order dated 5th January 2010, passed by the Commissioner
(Appeals)XVIII, Mumbai, for assessment years 200506.
2. Before us, both the learned Representatives agree that the tax effect
in the Revenue's appeal is less than ` 3,00,000. As per CBDT Instruction
no.3 of 2011, dated 9th February 2011, the appeal before the Appellate
Rishabh Investments P. Ltd.
2
Tribunal can be filed by the Revenue, when the tax effect exceeds the
monitory limit of ` 3,00,000.
3. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s Madhukar K.
Inamdar (HUF), 318 ITR 149 (Bom.) held as follows:-
"The circular dated May 15, 2008 in general and paragraph (5) thereof
in particular lay down that even if the same issue, in respect of the
same assessee, for other assessment years is involved, the
Department should not file appeal, if the tax effect 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 fixed by the Central
Board of Direct Taxes. The Board has also issued a circular on June 5,
2007, directing the Department to examine all appeals pending before
the court on a case to case basis with further direction to withdraw
cases wherein the criteria of monetary limits as per the prevailing
instruction are not satisfied, unless the question of law involved or
raised in appeal or referred to the High 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 issuance of the circular,
prevailing instructions fixing monetary limit will hold good even for
pending cases. The circular dated May 15, 2008 would be applicable to
pending cases requiring the Department to withdraw cases wherein
the tax effect is less than the prescribed monetary limits. The circular
dated May 15, 2008, would be applicable to cases pending before the
court either for admission or for final disposal and it is binding on the
Revenue."
4. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional 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., 335 ITR 591 (Del.).
Applying the propositions laid down in these case laws to the facts of the
present case, we dismiss the Revenue's appeal.
5. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th May 2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
R.S. PADVEKAR J. SUDHAKAR REDDY
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
MUMBAI, DATED: 24th May 2012
Rishabh Investments P. Ltd.
3
Copy to:
(1) The Assessee;
(2) The Respondent;
(3) The CIT(A), Mumbai, concerned;
(4) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned;
(5) The DR, "D" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai.
TRUE COPY
BY ORDER
Pradeep J. Chowdhury ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
|