9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , no material has been placed before this Court to substantiate the same. That apart, Revenue has raised the said ground for the first time before this Court, which is also not substantiated. Thus accepting the contention of the respondent/ assessee, all the substantial questions of law have to be answered against the Revenue - Tax Case Appeal No. 671 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 6-7-2016 - S. Manikumar And D. Krishnakumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. J. Narayanaswamy For the Respondent : Mr. P.J. Rishikesh JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was made by S. Manikumar, J) Instant Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order in W.T.A. 82/Mds/2004 dated 16.12.2005, for the assessment year 1998-99. 2. Short facts leadin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in not considering the issues raised by the department namely, the excess liability to an extent of ₹ 17,30,411/- which was allowed by mistake and rectified under Section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act ? 3. On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, inviting attention of this Court to the general ground (b), Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, submitted that the Tribunal missed to note that wealth tax assessments are consequential to revenue audit objections raised and in such circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the appeal in W.T.A. 82/Mds/2004. 4. Per contra, inviting the attention of this Court to the order dated 16.12.2005 in W.T.A. 82/Mds/2004, of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect) Rs. (i)Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal (in income-tax matters) 1,00,000 (ii) Appeal under Section 260A/ reference under Section 256(2) before the High Court 2,00,000 (iii) Appeal in the Supreme Court 5,00,000 The new monetary limits would apply with reference to each case taken singly. In other words, in group cases, each case should individually satisfy the new monetary limits. The working out of monetary limits will therefore not take into consideration the cumulative revenue effect as envisaged in the Board's earlier instruction referred to above. 3. Adverse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their circular No.1979 dated 27.3.2000 prescribed the monetary limit to ₹ 1,00,000/- for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. No exceptional circumstances as provided in the above said circular was pointed out by the learned D.R. for filing this appeal before this Tribunal. The circular of the CBDT binds on the Department. Therefore, the appeal ought not to have been filed before this Tribunal. Moreover, for the Assessment Years 1997-98 and 1998-99 (original assessment) in the assessee's own case, this Tribunal, in W.T.A Nos. 95 96/Mds/03, rejected the Department's appeal on the basis of the above CBDT circular. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted a copy of the order of this Tribunal dated 18.8.2005. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
