9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same in view of the instructions of the CBDT, thereby entitling the Appellate Tribunal not to decide the same on merits ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that the notional tax effect in this case is ₹ 8,65,160/- which is more than the prescribed limit ? 2. In short, the controversy arose in following factual background. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee claimed to have suffered loss in the assessment year in question. The Assessing Officer, however, disallowed the claim made by the assessee. Issue ultimately, reached the Tribunal in appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal holding it as not maintainable on the ground that in either case asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which included the monetary limits specified from time to time. Nowhere do these circulars, specify that irrespective of the degree of divergence between the Assessing Officer and CIT merely because in either case the assessee is held to have suffered loss, appeal before the Tribunal would not be presented. Starting with circular dated 27.3.2000, we find that the said circular provided for limits for preferring appeals to the Tribunal, reference before the High Court and appeal before the Supreme Court as long as the tax effect exceeded ₹ 1,00,000/-, ₹ 2,00,000/- and ₹ 5,00,000/- respectively. Paragraph 3 of the said circular specified the categories where irrespective of the revenue effect, such appeals could be pursued. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals should be presented before the Tribunal, High Court or the Supreme Court; merely because ultimately the income of the assessee was negative. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that none of the circulars presented before us intended to bar the tax appeals even where potential tax effect would be enormous, simply because in the year in question, the assessee had earned negative income. 37. The issue can be looked from a slightly different angle. In absence of the Board's circulars issued, which now can be stated to be covered under Section 268A of the Act, there are no limitations on Revenue carrying the issue in appeal either before the appellate Tribunal, the High Court, the Supreme Court. To hold that a particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect in cases of loss the appeals should be filed. In the previous circulars to reiterate, no such intention emerges. Only because clarification came in the subsequent circular dated 15.5.2008, would not mean that previously the Board desired that such appeals should be filtered out. Xxxxx 43. In the result common question, framed in all appeals, is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees. It is held that merely because even as per the Assessing Officer's order, ultimately income of the assessee is negative, the Revenue's appeal before the appellate Tribunal would not be barred by the Board's circular under Section 268A of the Act. It is, however, clarified that the notional tax effect would have to be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
