9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2011 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2015 - SHRI MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, JJ. For the Appellant : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Sr.D.R., For the Respondent : Shri M.S. Chhajed, A.R. ORDER PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER All these three Appeals have been filed by the Revenue arising from a consolidated order of learned CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad dated 22.10.2010 pertaining to A.Y.2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. 2. While deciding these Appeals learned CIT(A) has mentioned that the common issue involved in all the three years was rejection of claim of deduction u/s.80IA and directed to allow the claim as under: 2.4 As regards the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80I of the I.T. Act for A. Y.2004-05, it is seen that the appellant has filed return on 25/09/2009 in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, alongwith audit report in form No.l0CCB. The A.O. has disallowed the claim of appellant on the ground that no audit report was filed by the appellant at the time of filing the original return of income. Though the appellant did not file the audit report along with the original return, the same was filed at the time of filing the return. I f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the Board s Instruction No.5/2014 issued on 10.07.2014 revising the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before ITAT is maintainable or not. Ld. SR-DR drawn our attention to para-11 of the Instruction and argued that this will apply to the appeals filed on or after 10.07.2014 and not to the appeal filed prior to 10-07.2014. Hence, he vehemently opposed the argument of Ld. counsel for the assessee and stated that this instruction is prospective and not retrospective. 4. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. At the outset, it is seen that Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s. P. S. Jain Co. in ITA No.179/1991 dated 02.08.2010 has held as under: This court can very well take judicial notice of the fact that by passage of time money value has gone down, the cost of litigation expenses has gone up, the assessees on the file of the Departments have been increased consequently, the burden on the Department has also increased to a tremendous extent. The corridors of the superior courts are chocked with huge pendency of cases. In this view of the matter, the Board has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses where the tax effect exceeded ₹ 4 Lacs. Paragraph 11 of that instruction stipulated that it was applicable to appeals filed on or after 15th May, 2008. It was further provided that in cases, where appeals were filed before 15th May, 2008, they would be governed by the instructions on this subject which were operative at the time when such appeals were filed. The instruction was issued under Section 268A(1) of the Act. The argument of the learned Counsel for the revenue in that case was, that the instruction issued on 15th May, 2008 did not preclude the department from continuing with the appeals and/or Petitions filed prior to 15th May, 2008, if they involved a substantial question of law of a recurring nature, notwithstanding the fact that the total cumulative tax effect involved in the appeals was less than ₹ 4 Lacs. It was submitted, such appeals which were filed prior to the issuance of Instruction and where substantial questions of law were raised, were required to be decided on merits. The Court, while considering the issue observed that paragraph 5 of the Circular made it clear that no appeals would be filed in the cases involving tax effect less than ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to appeals filed on or after ....2011 and appeals filed before ...... 2011 would be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeals were filed. 11. In our opinion, when a similar clause has been interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in CIT vs. Madhukar Inamdar (Supra), the same principles must apply in the present cases also, as we have found that the instructions of 15th May, 2008 is para- material with the instruction of 9th February, 2011. 14. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Delhi Race Club Ltd. , decided on March 03, 2011, by relying on its earlier Judgement Commissioner Income Tax Delhi-III V/s M/s P.S. Jain and Co. decided on 2nd August, 2010 has held that the CBDT circular raising the monetary limit of the tax effect to ₹ 10 Lacs would be applicable to pending cases also. 17. It is true that this judgement in Chhajer's case (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench, while deciding either Madhukar's case (supra) or the case of Polycot Corporation (supra). However, the instruction of 2005 which was considered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and Supreme Court were specified. 2. In supersession of the above instruction, it has been decided by the Board that departmental appeals may be filed on merits before Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court keeping in view the monetary limits and conditions specified below. 3. Henceforth appeals shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:- S No. Appeals in Income-tax matters Monetary Limits (in Rs) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 4,00,000/- 2 U/s 260A before High Court 10,00,000/- 3 Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case. 4. For this purpose, tax effect means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esumption that the Income-tax Department has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issues. The Income-tax Department shall not be precluded from filing an appeal against the disputed issues in the case of the same assessee for any other assessment year, or in the case of any other assessee for the same or any other assessment year, if the tax effect exceeds the specified monetary limits. 7. In the past, a number of instances have come to the notice of the Bard, whereby an assessee has claimed relief from the Tribunal or the Court only on the ground that the Department has implicitly accepted the decision of the Tribunal or Court in the case of the assessee for any other assessment year or in the case of any other case for the same or any other assessment year, by not filing an appeal on the same disputed issues. The Departmental representatives/counsels must make every effort to bring to the notice of the Tribunal or the Court that the appeal in such cases was o tiled or not admitted only for the reason of the tax effect being less than the specified monetary limit and, therefore, no inference should be drawn that the decisions rendered therein were acceptable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
