9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 assessee had suffered loss and in that view of the matter, CBDT's circulars providing monetary limit for filing further appeal would render the Revenue's appeal not competent. 3. We notice that the notional tax was ₹ 23,03,000/- which was admittedly higher than the limit prescribed by the Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 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. The term tax effect specified in circular dated 27.3.2000 is nowhere defined and explained in any of the preceding and succeeding circulars. We must, therefore, understand this term in the context of the intention of the Board in limiting the Tax Appeals. 36. We must also remind ourselves that Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 particular appeal is not maintainable by virtue of the limitations imposed by the Board in its circular, such limitation must be traced into circular itself. In other words unless and until the appeal is found to be opposed to the directives issued by the Board in its different circulars prevailing from time to ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esult 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 above the limits prescribed by the Board from time to time for presentation of such appeals. In all these cases since it is stated that the notional tax effect would be higher than the limits prescribed by the Board in different circulars, we are of the view that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
