9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the appeals to the file of the Tribunal- CIT v. Smt. K. R. Ushasree (2009 -TMI - 203002 - Kerala High Court). - 108 and 109 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2009 - RAMACHANDRAN NAIR C. N., MOHANAN V. K. JJ. JUDGMENT C. N. Ramachandran Nair J.- These are wealth-tax appeals filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Tribunal holding that the Departmental appeals filed before it were not maintainable because the tax effect involved is below the threshold limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in their Instruction No. 2 of 2005, dated October 24, 2005. We have heard senior counsel appearing for the Revenue and Sri P. Balakrishnan, counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. During the hearing senior counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R (Bom) 132, and contended that the current circular should be followed by Tribunals and courts while considering the maintainability of appeals, and if pending appeals are not maintainable under the provisions of the new circular, those appeals should be withdrawn or dismissed as not maintainable. However, senior counsel has referred to clause (11) of Instruction No. 5 of 2008, which is as follows : (11) This instruction will apply to appeals filed on or after May 15, 2008. However, the cases where appeals have been filed before May 15, 2008, will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed. The first question to be considered is which is the Instruction to be followed for consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facie a non-productive asset is a substantial question of law arising in the case of several assessees and the same will repeatedly arise in the case of the very same assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that all these cases will fall within the exception clause, namely, clause (3) of Instruction No. 2 of 2005, dated October 24, 2005. The contention of counsel for the assessee that by virtue of sub-sequent Instruction 5 of 2008, appeal is not maintainable is also not acceptable because it is specifically mentioned in clause (11) of that Instruction that Instruction will apply only for appeals filed after May 15, 2008, and it is also specifically provided that maintainability of appeals prior to that should be considered with reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
