2012 (4) TMI 229 - HC - Income Tax

Instruction No.3 of 2011 dated 9th February, 2011 - Appeal shall not be filed in the High Court under section 260A of the Income Tax Act where the tax effect does not exceed a sum of Rs.10 Lacs. assessee submits that the appeal has been filed prior to the issuance of circular dated 9th February, 2011, therefore, the circular does not apply to the present case Held that - the circular has a retrospective operation and instructions contained in the circular would apply even to the pending cases as decided in Commisisoner of Income Tax V/s Smt. Vijaya V. Kavekar -2007 - TMI - 71366 - ITAT PUNE-A held against assessee the appeal has a cascading effect and should be entertained Held that - the matter was adjourned once to enable assessee to point out whether similar question is involved in any other appeal. Till today, the learned counsel was unable to point out a single other case in which similar question is involve - Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of circular regarding tax effect limit for filing appeals in High Court.
2. Retrospective effect of circular on pending cases.
3. Contention of cascading effect in the appeal.
4. Justification for dismissing the appeal based on lack of cascading effect.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of the applicability of a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding the tax effect limit for filing appeals in the High Court under section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The circular states that appeals shall not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.10 lakhs. The court notes that the claim in the present appeal is less than Rs.10 lakhs, leading to the conclusion that the appeal must be dismissed based on the circular's provisions.

2. The judgment further delves into the retrospective effect of the circular on pending cases. The appellant argues that since the appeal was filed before the circular's issuance, it should not apply. However, the court cites previous decisions to establish that such circulars have retrospective operation and apply even to pending cases. Therefore, the contention that the circular does not apply to the present case is rejected.

3. The appellant raises the argument of a cascading effect in the appeal, relying on a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court had granted liberty to the Department to move the High Court in cases with a cascading effect where the circular should not be applied automatically. However, after careful consideration, the High Court finds that the present appeal does not involve any cascading effect or multiple appeals on the same point, leading to the dismissal of this argument.

4. Finally, the court addresses the justification for dismissing the appeal based on the lack of a cascading effect. The questions of law framed in the appeal memo are analyzed, and it is determined that the issues raised do not appear to have a cascading effect or be involved in multiple appeals. The court emphasizes that no other similar cases were pointed out by the appellant, reinforcing the decision to dismiss the appeal. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed based on the lack of a cascading effect and the specific circumstances of the case.