9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed Representative for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable since the tax effect was below Rs. 4 lakhs. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has placed on record the computation of tax relatable to the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. 4. On the perusal of record, we find that the tax effect in the appeal filed by the Revenue is below Rs. 4 lakhs. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue fairly admitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than Rs. 4 lakhs. 5. We find that the issue in the present appeal is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Vijaya V. Kavekar reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion" reported at "(2009) 318 ITR 144 (Bom), a another Division Bench of this Court construed the same instruction no. 2 of 2005, dated 24th October, 2005. The Division bench observed while construing the paragraph no. 5 of the circular, as thus : "9. Having considered the contentions, in our opinion, the instructions cannot be interpreted as a statute though it is pursuant to the power conferred under Section 268A of the IT Act. What the Court has to consider is the plain language of the para and the object behind the said provisions. The object appears to be not to burden Courts and Tribunals in respect of matters where the tax effect is less than the limit prescribed. Even before this Instruction, CBDT has been issuing instructions, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have no meaning if it was restricted only to the expression "common issues". The expression, therefore, of a composite order will have to be read to mean an order in respect of the same assessee for more than one year. An (order) disposing of several appeals on a common question of law by appellate authority, cannot be said to be a composite order as the order involves appeals by different persons, which appeals for the sake of convenience have been only clubbed together for the purpose of disposal on that issue. In our opinion, this would be the correct reading of para 5 of the instruction." 8. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court further held as under:- "15. The position of law, therefore, emerging from the aforesaid judgements, is that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue because of small tax effect. 10. Now, coming to the appeal filed by the assessee, following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,55,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the Long Term Capital Gain at Rs. 1,93,913/- the calculation of which has been made erroneously by adopting the index of F.Y. 1999-2000 as against the index of F.Y. 1995-96. The above grounds of appeal may kindly be allowed to be amended, altered, modified, etc., in the interest of natural jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid order of CIT(A). 15. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that in all, there was cash deposit of Rs. 12,55,000/- in the bank account of the assessee. The said amounts were out of sale proceeds of the property sold by the assessee, out of which the explanation of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 10 lakhs has been accepted by the CIT(A) though the Revenue has filed the appeal against the said deletion of Rs. 10 lakhs, but the said appeal has not maintainable because of low tax effect. It was further pointed out by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that balance sum of Rs. 2,55,000/- was out of savings of the assessee and the agricultural proceeds received by the assessee from agricultura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eds. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 2,55,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. The ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is thus, allowed. 18. The issue in ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is against the indexation of the cost of acquisition of the assets sold by the assessee. The claim of the assessee before the authorities below was that the income from long term capital gain was to be computed by adopting indexation of financial year 1995-96 to the cost of acquisition of the property. However, the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had adopted the indexation of financial year 1999-2000 since the assessee had purchased the asset in the said year. 19. The learned Authorized R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
