TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed Due to Tax Limit: Tribunal Upholds CBDT Guidelines</h1> The Revenue's appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 3 lakhs. The ... Tax effect – Held that:- The tax effect in the present appeal is below the prescribed monetary limit in filing the appeal before the Tribunal – The CBDT vide instruction no.3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 revised/raised the monetary limit for filing the appeal by the department - Following CIT v. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) [2009 (7) TMI 145 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - The Circular issued by CBDT will be applicable to the cases pending before the Court either for admission or for final disposal and held that Instruction No. 3 dated 9.2.2011 is applicable for the appeal preferred by the revenue - The revised monetary limit issued by the CBDT vide instruction No.3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 – Decided against Revenue. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of depreciation.2. Applicability of prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Deletion of Addition on Account of DepreciationThe Revenue challenged the order dated 20.12.2012 by the first appellate authority, which deleted the addition of Rs. 3,55,025/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of depreciation. The Revenue argued that the first appellate authority erred in this deletion.Issue 2: Applicability of Prescribed Monetary LimitDuring the hearing, the counsel for the assessee pointed out that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit. It was also contended that the issue was covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Shri Omprakash Chourasia (ITA No. 388/Ind/2012, order dated 17.7.2013). This assertion was not contested by the Revenue.The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and reviewed the material on record. It was noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 3 lakhs. The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions, such as Omprakash Wadhwani (ITA No. 481/Ind/2012, order dated 14th February 2013), where appeals were dismissed on similar grounds of low tax effect.The Tribunal reproduced relevant portions of earlier orders to support its decision. For instance, in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Choudhary Innovative Business P. Ltd. (IT(SS)A Nos.70 to 76/Ind/2011), the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed limit. Similarly, in CIT v. Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel & Company (2009) 317 ITR 386 (MP), the High Court emphasized that appeals with minimal tax effect should not be pursued.The Tribunal also noted the CBDT's instruction No. 3/2011 dated 9.2.2011, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 3,00,000/- for ITAT, Rs. 10,00,000/- for High Court, and Rs. 25,00,000/- for the Supreme Court. This instruction was applicable to appeals filed on or after 9.2.2011 and was issued under section 268A(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.Given that the tax effect in the present appeal was Rs. 2,69,241/-, below the prescribed limit, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal was not maintainable. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with its earlier rulings and the CBDT's instructions.ConclusionThe appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. This decision was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of representatives from both sides on 23rd October 2013.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
