ITO 1(1)(4), MUMBAI v. BHARAT CO OP BANK, MUMBAI

ITA 4583/MUM/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 458319914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAAAT0030E
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4583/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant ITO 1(1)(4), MUMBAI
Respondent BHARAT CO OP BANK, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 03-06-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL(A.M) AND SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN(J. M) ITA NO.4583/MUM/2010(A.Y.2006-07) THE ITO 1(1)(4) ROOM NO.579 AAYKAR BHAVAN MK ROAD MUMBAI 20. (APPELLANT) VS. M/S. BHARAT CO-OP. BANK (MUMBAI) 64/72 MODY STREET FORT MUMBAI 400 001. PAN:AAAAT 0030E (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.C.MAURYA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH DATE OF HEARING : 27/07/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/07/2011 ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN J.M THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2009 OF CIT(A)- 1 MUMBAI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07. 2. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS POINTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS. 3.00 LACS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THOUGH THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 3/6/2010 AND AT THAT POINT OF TIME THE MONETARY LIM IT FOR FILING OF APPEALS BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS ONLY RS. 2.00 L ACS YET AS PER INSTRUCTIONS NO.3/2011 DATED 9/2/2011 APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAN BE FILED ONLY WHERE TAX EFFECT EXCEEDS MONETARY LIMIT OF RS. 3 LACS. ITA NO.4583/MUM/2010(A.Y.2006-07) 2 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S. LAXMI JEWEL PVT. LTD. ITA NO.2165/M/10 ( ORDER DATED 12/4/2011) THAT THE LATE R CIRCULAR WILL BE APPLICABLE EVEN FOR APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVENU E BEFORE THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE SAID CIRCULAR. THE FOLLOWING WERE THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL: 4. AT THE OUTSET THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THA T THE TAX AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS ONLY ` 2 07 512/- AND AS PER INSTRUCTION NO. 3/2011 THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT CONTEST APPEAL UPTO ` 3 00 000/- AS PER THE NEW MONITORY LIMIT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADHUKAR K . INAMDAR (HUF) 318 ITR 149 CONSIDERED THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE A PPEALS ON SMALL TAX BASIS AND HELD THAT CBDT CIRCULAR ISSUED LATER WOUL D BE APPLICABLE TO ALL THE APPEALS PENDING IN APPELLATE FORUMS AND TH EREFORE RELYING ON THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 5 OF 2008 THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED WHERE THE TAX EFFECT WAS LEAS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED ON THE PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED IN THE ABOVE S AID CASE TO SUBMIT THAT THE PRESENT LIMIT OF ` 3 00 000/- MAKE THE REVENUE APPEAL NON- MAINTAINABLE AS THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN ` 3 00 000/-. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DELHI RACE CLUB LTD. IN ITA NO. 128 OF 2008 DATED 0 3.03.2011 RELIED ON THE LATEST CBDT INSTRUCTION TO DISMISS THE APPEA L AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 5.THE LEARNED D.R. HOWEVER OBJECTED TO THE SUBMIS SIONS STATING THAT AT THE TIME OF PREFERRING THE APPEAL THE TAX LIMIT WAS ONLY ` 2 00 000/- AND THAT INSTRUCTION WAS FOLLOWED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IF ONLY ` 2 07 512/-. AS PER INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011 DATED 09.02.2011 APPEAL BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C AN BE FILED WHERE THE TAX EFFECT EXCEEDS THE MONITORY LIMIT OF ` 3 00 000/-. HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE TAX LIMITS WERE MODIFIED BY THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 5 OF 2008 THE HON'BLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) (S UPRA) HELD THAT THE CIRCULAR WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE CASES PENDIN G BEFORE THE COURT EITHER FOR ADMISSION OR FOR FINAL DISPOSAL. IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WE HOLD THAT INSTRUCTION NO. 3 DATED 09.02.2011 IS APPLICABLE FOR THE APPEAL PREFERRED B Y THE REVENUE. ITA NO.4583/MUM/2010(A.Y.2006-07) 3 THEREFORE THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED ON THE ISSUE OF TAX EFFECT INVOLVED. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION REFERRED TO ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THE APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF THE MON ETARY LIMIT OF TAX EFFECT BEING LESS THAN RS. 3.0 LACS. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TH E 29 TH DAY OF JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.S.SYAL) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED. 29 TH JULY.2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.RA BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR I TAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM. ITA NO.4583/MUM/2010(A.Y.2006-07) 4 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 27/7/11 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 27/7/11 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER