Madhav Ram, Bangalore V. ITO, CHENNAI

CO 154/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6749 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAJI P JACOB IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAVI
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A NO.941/MDS/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD IV(2) CHENNAI VS SHRI MADHAV RAM PLOT NO.84, DOOR NO.47 BEACH ROAD, KALAKSHETRA COLONY BESANT NAGAR CHENNAI 600 090 [PAN AIZPR6601F] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.154/MDS/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ) SHRI MADHAV RAM PLOT NO.84, DOOR NO.47 BEACH ROAD, KALAKSHETRA COLONY BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI 600090 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD IV(2) CHENNAI (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, IRS, CIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. RAVI, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 08-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-12-2011 ITA 941/10 CO 154/11 :- 2 -: O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJEC TION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) V, CHENNAI, DATED 29-3-2010, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SEEN THAT THE TAX EFF ECT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS LESS THAN ` 3 LAKHS. INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 DATED 9 TH FEB.,2011 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TA XES, UNDER SEC.268A(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, HAS GIVEN DIRECTIONS NOT TO FILE APPEALS BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUN AL WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED ` 3 LAKHS. 3. THE FIRST INSTRUCTION NO.1093 DATED 28.10.1992 ISSUED BY THE BOARD, HAD LAID DOWN SUCH LIMIT AT ` 25,000/-. THEREAFTER THROUGH INSTRUCTION NO. 1979 DATED 27.3.2000, THE SAID LIMI T WAS ENHANCED TO ` 1,00,000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE LIMIT WAS AGAIN INCRE ASED TO ` 2 LAKHS THROUGH INSTRUCTION NO.2 DATED 24.10.2005. 4. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS, WHEN THE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL IN LIMINE ON THE G ROUND OF NON- MAINTAINABILITY, ISSUES WERE TAKEN UP BEFORE THE HO N'BLE HIGH COURTS. ITA 941/10 CO 154/11 :- 3 -: THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S CAMCO COLOUR CO. (254 ITR 565) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE REVENUE EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT, THE APPEA L IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THEREAFTER THE HON' BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CWT VS. ANNAMALI (258 ITR 675) HELD THAT T HE LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN THE LATEST INSTRUCTION IS APPLICABLE NOT ONLY TO THE APPEALS TO BE FILED AFTER THE ISSUE OF SUCH INSTRUCTIONS, BUT ALSO APPL ICABLE TO THE PENDING APPEALS. THIS VIEW WAS AGAIN FOLLOWED BY THE HON'B LE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AGENCIES (295 ITR 496). THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ALSO HAS HELD THE SAME VIEW IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PITHWA ENGG. WORKS (276 ITR 519 ) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ZOEB Y. TOPPIWALA (284 ITR 379). 5. THUS, THE COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT WHE RE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT, APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HAVE ALSO HELD THAT THE LATEST SUC H INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE EVEN TO THE PENDING APPEALS. 6. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THIS APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ITA 941/10 CO 154/11 :- 4 -: 7. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN REVENUES APPEAL, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS, HENCE , DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 5 TH DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15 TH DECEMBER, 2011 RD COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR