Tax effect should be minimum otherwise appeal deserved to be dismissed

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL (JM) AND SHRI RAJENDRA (AM)

ITA No.6909/Mum/2010

(Assessment Year: 2004-05)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1),

Room No.575, 5th Floor,

Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road,

Mumbai - 400020.

APPELLANT

V/s

M/s Datacraft India Ltd.

Unit No.204-206, 2nd Floor, Trade Centre,

Kamla Mills Compound, Lower Parel,

Mumbai-400013

PAN: AAACD2145G

RESPONDENT

Date of Hearing: 10.4.2012

Date of Pronouncement: 18.4.2012

Appellant by: Shri C.G.K.Nair

Respondent by: Shri Manish Shah

O R D E R

PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL (JM)

This appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 30.7.2010 passed by the ld. CIT (A) for the Assessment Year 2004-05.

2. The effective ground taken by the Revenue reads as under:

“2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that no expenditure is disallowable u/s 14A in respect of investment made in units of Debt Mutual Funds without appreciating that dividend income earned by the assessee during the previous year did not form part of the total income chargeable to tax.”

3. At the time of hearing, it was observed that the tax effect on the disputed amount of Rs.3,08,643/- in the appeal filed by the revenue is less than the monetary limit of Rs.3,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT. The learned Departmental Representative did not dispute on the said factual matrix of the case.

4. That being so and in view of the recent CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 9th February, 2011 reported in (2011) 332 ITR 1 (Statutes) and the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) (2009) 318 ITR 148(Bom), wherein it has been held that the revised monetary limit in the Circular dated May 15, 2008 would be applicable for all pending appeals and also the consistent view of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the Department should not have filed the appeal and accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

5. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th April, 2012.

                                                      Sd                                        Sd

                                            (RAJENDRA)           (DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL)

                                 ACCOUNTANT MEMBER        JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, 18th April, 2012

SRL:

Copy to:

1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT Concerned

4. CIT (A) concerned

5. DR concerned Bench

6. Guard file.

True copy

BY ORDER

ASSTT. REGISTRAR,

ITAT, MUMBAI