9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stic reading of the two circulars, Mr. Pardiwalla's contention will have to be upheld.
As in the case of V. M. Salgaonkar and Brothers [2024 (12) TMI 717 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has expressly upheld such contention by expressly rejecting the argument identical to that which is advanced today before us. Even in V. M. Salgaonkar and Brothers [2024 (12) TMI 717 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] revenue had argued that the circulars must be read holistically and there was no scope for reading or construing one part retrospectively and the other prospectively.
Thus, based on the above two CBDT circulars and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in V. M. Salgaonkar and Brothers (supra), we dispose of these Appeals since Mr. Chhotaray maintains that he has no instructions to withdraw the same. This was the course of action adopted by the Coordinate Bench in V. M. Salgaonkar and Brothers (supra) and by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Satish Kumar Agarwal (supra) [2024 (10) TMI 431 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT]
All these appeals are thus disposed of. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andini Shulka, 23. Mr. Dhaval Shah a/w. Ms. Tisha Bagh, 24. Mr. Divesh Chawla, 25. Mr. K. Gopal a/w. Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Mr. Om Kandalkar, 26. Mr. Srihari Iyer, 27. Mr. Sanjiy Shah, 28. Mr. Subir Kumar a/w. Mr. Abhinav Palsikar, 29. Mr. Rahul Hakani a/w. Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav, Mr. Shashi Bekal, 30. Mr. Akshay A. Pawar i/b. Mr. Govind Javeri, 31. Ms. Aarti Vissanji, 32. Mr. Ranit Basu a/w. Ms. Maitri Malde, Mr. Dua Shaikh, 33. Mr. Sanket Bora a/w. Ms. Vidhi Punamiya, Ms. Amiya Das, Ms. Unnatii Thakkar i/b. SPCM Legal, 34. Mr. Kalpesh Turalkar, 35. Ms. Vasanti Patel, 36. Mr. Chetan A. Alai, 37. Mr.. B. V. Jhaveri, 38. Mr. Yohaan Shah i/b. Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah, 39. Mr. Sinran Dhawan a/w. Ms. Vidushi Maheshwari, Mr. Prathamesh Chavan i/b. India Law, 40. Ms. Neha Anchlia, a/w. Mr. M Jain, Mr. S. Mishra, 41. Mr. Shreyash Shah a/w. Mr. Mukesh Butani, 42. Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w. Bhagrati Sahu i/b. UBR Legal, 43. Mr. Rajendra, 44. Mr. Aditya Dhatrak i/b. Jeet Gandhi, 45. Mr. Gopalkrishna Nayak a/w. Ms. Devyani Dhawale i/b. Flavia Legal, 46. Mr. Devvrat Singh, 47. Mr. Prakash Shah Senior Adv. a/w. Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr. Suyog Bhave i/b. PDS Legal,48. Mr. Prakash Pandit, Mr. Sashi Tu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded as having retrospective effect by the revenue. He contended that treating one aspect of the circular as retrospective and the other as prospective is not permissible. He argued that the circulars must be interpreted in their entirety and in a holistic manner. On this basis, Mr. Chhotaray asserted that the revenue was justified in relying upon the exceptions and not withdrawing the pending Appeals encompassed by the exceptions. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and are satisfied that the issue that has now arisen is covered by the two decisions Mr. Pardiwalla relied on. 8. The Circular No.05/2024 dated 15 March 2024 inter alia provides that Appeals/SLPs, not falling in the exceptions as detailed in paragraph 3, shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereinunder: Sr. No. Appeals/SLPs in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (₹) 1. Before Appellate Tribunal 50,00,000 2. Before High Court 1,00,00,000 3. Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000 9. Clause 3.1 of Circular No. 05/2024 dated 15 March 2024 provides that the monetary limits in paragraph 4 concerning filing Appeals/SLPs shall apply to all cases includin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. First of all, the exception which the revenue seeks to rely upon was created for the first time in the Circular dated 15.03.2024 and para 10 of the said Circular makes it abundantly clear that the Circulars would apply to appeals that would be filed henceforth which also stands to reason as a Circular which carves out additional exceptions can only have prospective effect because it is only on the issuance of such a circular that the various exceptions detailed in para 3.1 were enunciated. As noted earlier, initially the exceptions were only of three categories but subsequently increased to five and, thereafter, the present Circular increased the same to thirteen. The decision whether an appeal should be filed irrespective of the monetary limits involved has to be made when the appeal is filed and it is only the exceptions that are then prevalent that would be applicable. Any exception introduced thereafter would have no application whatsoever in determining whether an appeal should be filed. This would be a normal way of construing the circular and, in any event, the language of Para 10 makes it abundantly clear that such was the intention. In fact whenever the Board has enhan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
