9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed CIT(A)-II, Indore, dated 29.6.2012. 2. We have heard both the sides. We find that the CBDT vide Circular no. 21/20145 issued on 10.12.2015 has revised the monetary limit for filing of appeal before ITAT fixing the tax effect limit at ₹ 10 lacs. The said Circular is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :- Circular No. 21/2015 F No 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt) Central Board Direct Taxes New Delhi the 10 th December, 2015 Subject : Revision of monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before Supreme Court measures for reducing litigation Reg. Reference is invited to Board s instruction No 5/2014 dated 10.07.2014 wherein monetary limits and other conditions for filing departmental appeals (in Income-tax matters) before Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before the 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 and High Courts and SLP before the Supreme Court keeping in view the monetary limits and conditions specified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year and common issues in more than one assessment year, appeal shall be filed in respect of all such assessment years even if the tax effect is less than the prescribed monetary limits in any of the year(s), if it is decided to file appeal in respect of the year(s) in which tax effect exceeds the monetary limit prescribed. In case where a composite order/ judgement involves more than one assessee, each assessee shall be dealt with separately. 6. In a case where appeal before a Tribunal or a Court is not filed only on account of the tax effect being less than the monetary limit specified above, the Commissioner of Income-tax shall specifically record that even though the decision is not acceptable, appeal is not being filed only on the consideration that the tax effect is less than the monetary limit specified in this instruction . Further, in such cases, there will be no presumption 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be taken on merits of a particular case. 10. This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/ Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed. 11. This issues under section 268A (1) of the Income-tax Act 1961. 3. In view of the above Circular, since the tax effect involved in this appeal is below the prescribed monetary limit for filing of appeals before the ITAT, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine being not maintainable in view of above Circular no. 21/20145 dated 10.12.2015. 4. We further find 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 Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the Board. The monetary limit was increased and appeals were to be filed under Section 260A, thereafter, only in cases 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to file appeals on merits of each case. Clause 11, again provides that the instruction would apply 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. MadhukarInamdar (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 Corpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
