9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellants : E. I. Sanmathi , Advocate For the Respondent : Rajesh Chander Kumar , Advocate JUDGMENT MRS. S. SUJATHA J. - 1. This Income-tax appeal filed by the appellant-Revenue earlier came to be disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court on November 2, 2011, on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect involved being less than the prescribed monetary limit of ₹ 20 lakhs in the instructions issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes in 2011 (for short the CBDT ). 2. The matter was remanded back to this court by orders of the hon'ble Supreme Court by a common order passed in some civil appeals, including the lead Civil Appeal No. 16815 of 2017 at S. L. P. (C) No. 1425 of 2014 CIT v. Gemini Distilleries reported in [2017] 398 ITR 343 (SC) decided on October 12, 2017, but the said order of the two-judge Bench of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gemini Distilleries (supra) came to be explained by a later decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT v. S. R. M. B. Dairy Farming (P.) Ltd. reported in [2018] 400 ITR 9 (SC) decided on November 23, 2017 about the retrospective application of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT v. Suman Dhamija [2015] 16 SCC 176 again arising from a Delhi High Court order, wherein it was simply stated that since the appeals were preferred before 2011 and the instructions were dated February 9, 2011, the earlier cases would not be covered by the instruction. This order in turn had been followed by another two-judges Bench in Civil Appeal No. 16815 of 2017 titled CIT v. Gemini Distilleries [2017] 398 ITR 343 (SC) dated October 12, 2017. Once again, in another matter CIT v. Century Park [2015] 373 ITR 32 (SC) the line adopted by the three-judges Bench in Surya Herbal Ltd. case (supra) has been followed. We have already given our imprimatur to the observations made by the Karnataka High Court in a detailed analysis in Ranka and Ranka case [2013] 352 ITR 121 (Karn), which has dealt with the litigation policy philosophy behind applying the circular and the benefit being extended in view thereof to all assessees where appeals have been pending, but below the financial limit, as otherwise an anomalous situation would arise. We may also take note of the judgment of this court in Suchitra Components Ltd. v. CCE [2007] 208 ELT 321 (SC) on the general principle of applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar, it has been decided by the Board that Departmental appeals may be filed on merits before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and special leave petitions/appeals before the Supreme Court keeping in view the monetary limits and conditions specified below. 3. Henceforth, appeals/special leave petitions shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder : S. No. Appeals/SLPs in Income-tax matters Monetary limit (Rs.) 1. Before Appellate Tribunal 20,00,000 2. Before High Court 50,00,000 3. Before Supreme Court 1,00,00,000 It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on the merits of the case. 4. For this purpose, 'tax effect' means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lled general provisions) ; B = the total income that would have been chargeable had the total income assessed as per the general provisions been reduced by the amount of the disputed issues under general provisions ; C = the total income assessed as per the provisions contained in section 115JB or section 115JC ; D = the total income that would have been chargeable had the total income assessed as per the provisions contained in section 115JB or section 115JC was reduced by the amount of disputed issues under the said provisions : However, where the amount of disputed issues is considered both under the provisions contained in section 115JB or section 115JC and under general provisions, such amount shall not be reduced from the total income assessed while determining the amount under item D. 7. In a case where the 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 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax/ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... validity of the provisions of an Act or Rules is under challenge, or (b) Where Board's order, notification, instruction or circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or (c) Where Revenue audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, or (d) Where the addition relates to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts. 11. The monetary limits specified in para 3 above shall not apply to writ matters and direct tax matters other than Income-tax. Filing of appeals in other direct tax matters shall continue to be governed by relevant provisions of statute and rules. Further, in cases where the tax effect is not quantifiable or not involved, such as the case of registration of trusts or institutions under section 12A/12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 etc., filing of appeal shall not be governed by the limits specified in para 3 above and decision to file appeals in such cases may be taken on merits of a particular case. 12. It is clarified that the monetary limit of ₹ 20 lakhs for filing appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal would apply equally to cross-objections under section 253(4) of the Act. Cross-objections below this monetar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
