Itxa/1931/2017 Of Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax-31 v. Gundencha Builders

spb/ 8itxa-1931-17.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1931 OF 2017 The Principal Commissioner of Income … Appellant.Tax-31, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra- Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai -62. V/s. Gundencha Builders, 141, Gundecha House, Jawahar Nagar,Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400 062. ...Respondent. --- Mr. Arvind Pinto, Advocate for the Appellant.Ms. Aasifa Khan, Advocate for Respondent. --- CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN AND MILIND N. JADHAV,JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 05, 2020. ORAL ORDER : 1Heard Mr. Arvind Pinto, learned standingcounsel Revenue for the Appellant and Ms. Aasifa Khan,learned counsel for the Respondent. 2This Appeal has been preferred by theRevenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act1961 against the order dated 24.08.2016 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai "G" Bench, 1/2 spb/ 8itxa-1931-17.doc Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No. 6103/M/2014 for theassessment year 2011-12. 3At the outset, Mr. Pinto, learned standingcounsel Revenue, submits that the disputed tax amountin the present Appeal is Rs.60,60,700.00 which is belowthe enhanced prescribed limit for filing of appeal beforethe High Court by Income Tax Department in terms ofCBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019.However, he submits that he has not received anyinstructions from the Department as to whether presentappeal falls under any exception as provided in the saidcircular. 4Be that as it may, having regard to the factthat the disputed tax effect is below the prescribed limitas per the said circular the Appeal is dismissed onwithdrawal. However, if the appeal falls within any ofthe exceptions carved out by the said circular, it will beopen to the Appellant to seek revival of the appeal. 5Court fee paid may be refunded in terms ofthe Rules. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) ….. 2/2