SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, Bhopal V. THE DCIT-5(1), Bhopal

CO 35/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1737 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S GAUTAM
• Keywords: Audit objection; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Tax effect
• Section: 260A; 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.329/IND/2015 A.Y. : 2010-11. DY. CIT, 5(1), BHOPAL SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPAL. VS. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. ACIPS9732P C.O.NO. 35/IND/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.329/IND/2015) A.Y. : 2010-11. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPAL. DY. CIT, 5(1), BHOPAL VS. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI G.S.GAUTAM, DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE. DATE OF HEARING : 30 .12.2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .1 2 .2015 DY. CIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPALL- I .T.A.NO. 329/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 & C.O.NO.35/IND/2015 2 2 O R D E R PER D.T.GARASIA, J.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), BHOPAL DATED 25.03.2015. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. WE FIND THAT RECENTLY THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 21/20145 ISSUED ON 10.12.2015 HAS REVISED THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILI NG OF APPEAL BEFORE ITAT FIXING THE TAX EFFECT LIMIT AT R S.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 FIL ING OF APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COURTS AND SLP BEFORE DY. CIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPALL- I .T.A.NO. 329/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 & C.O.NO.35/IND/2015 3 3 SUPREME COURT MEASURES FOR REDUCING LITIGATION REG. REFERENCE IS INVITED TO BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO 5/2014 DATED 10.07.2014 WHEREIN MONETARY LIMITS AND OTHER CONDITIONS FOR FILING DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL S (IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS) BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A ND 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 AN D HIGH COURTS AND SLP BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT KEEPING IN VIEW THE MONETARY LIMITS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BELOW. 3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/ SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER: S.NO. APPEALS IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS) 1 BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 10,00,000/- 2 BEFORE HIGH COURT 20,00,000/- 3 BEFORE SUPREME COURT 25,00,000/- IT IS CLARIFIED THAT AN APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED MERELY BECAUSE THE TAX EFFECT IN A CASE EXCEEDS THE MONETA RY LIMITS PRESCRIBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH C ASES IS TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 4. FOR THIS PURPOSE, TAX EFFECT MEANS THE DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AND TH E DY. CIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPALL- I .T.A.NO. 329/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 & C.O.NO.35/IND/2015 4 4 TAX THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGEABLE HAD SUCH TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES AGAINST WHICH APPEAL IS INTEN DED TO BE FILED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS DISPUTED ISSUES). HOWEVER THE TAX WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY INTE REST THEREON, EXCEPT WHERE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST ITS ELF IS IN DISPUTE. IN CASE THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST I S THE ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE, THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST SHALL B E THE TAX EFFECT. IN CASES WHERE RETURNED LOSS IS RED UCED OR ASSESSED AS INCOME, THE TAX EFFECT WOULD INCLUDE NOTIONAL TAX ON DISPUTED ADDITIONS. IN CASE OF PENALTY ORDERS, THE TAX EFFECT WILL MEAN QUANTUM OF PENALTY DELETED OR REDUCED IN THE ORDER TO BE APPEALED AGAINST. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CALCULATE THE TAX EF FECT SEPARATELY FOR EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THE CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE. IF, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, THE DISPUTED ISSUES ARISE IN M ORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL, CAN BE FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH T HE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES EXCEED S THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN PARA 3. NO APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMI T SPECIFIED IN PARA 3. IN OTHER WORDS, HENCEFORTH, APPEALS CAN BE FILED ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TAX EFFECT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, IN CASE OF A COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND COMMON ISSUES IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPE CT OF ALL SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS EVEN IF THE TAX EFFEC T 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. DY. CIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPALL- I .T.A.NO. 329/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 & C.O.NO.35/IND/2015 5 5 6. IN A CASE WHERE APPEAL BEFORE A TRIBUNAL OR A CO URT IS NOT FILED ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE TAX EFFECT BEIN G LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED ABOVE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SHALL SPECIFICALLY RECOR D 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 CA SES, THERE WILL BE NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT HAS ACQUIESCED IN THE DECISION ON THE DISPUTED ISSUES. THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT SHALL NO T BE PRECLUDED FROM FILING AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FO R ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, OR IN THE CASE OF ANY OT HER ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, IF THE TAX EFFECT EXCEEDS THE SPECIFIED MONETARY LIMIT S. 7. IN THE PAST, A NUMBER OF INSTANCES HAVE COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE BOARD, WHEREBY AN ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RELIEF FROM THE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS IMPLICITLY ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL OR COURT IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR OR IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME OR A NY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, BY NOT FILING AN APPEAL ON T HE SAME DISPUTED ISSUES. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES/COUNSELS MUST MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO BRING TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT TH AT THE APPEAL IN SUCH CASES WAS NOT FILED OR NOT ADMIT TED ONLY FOR THE REASON OF THE TAX EFFECT BEING LESS TH AN THE SPECIFIED MONETARY LIMIT AND, THEREFORE, NO INFEREN CE SHOULD BE DRAWN THAT THE DECISIONS RENDERED THEREIN WERE ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE Y SHOULD IMPRESS UPON THE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT THAT SUCH CASES DO NOT HAVE ANY PRECEDENT VALUE. AS THE EVIDENCE OF NOT FILING APPEAL DUE TO THIS INSTRUCTI ON MAY HAVE TO BE PRODUCED IN COURTS, THE JUDICIAL FOLDERS IN THE OFFICE OF CSIT MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A SYSTEMIC MANNER FOR EASY RETRIEVAL. DY. CIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPALL- I .T.A.NO. 329/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 & C.O.NO.35/IND/2015 6 6 8. ADVERSE JUDGMENTS RELATING TO THE FOLLOWING ISSU ES SHOULD BE CONTESTED ON MERITS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE TAX EFFECT ENTAILED IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY L IMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 ABOVE OR THERE IS NO TAX EFFECT : (A) WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF AN ACT OR RULE ARE UNDER CHALLENGE, O R (B) WHERE BOARDS ORDER, NOTIFICATION, INSTRUCTIO N OR CIRCULAR HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ILLEGAL OR ULTRA VIRE S, OR (C) WHERE REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION IN THE CASE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, OR (D) WHERE THE ADDITION RELATES TO UNDISCLOSED FOR EIGN ASSETS/ BANK ACCOUNTS. 9. THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 ABOVE SH ALL NOT APPLY TO WRIT MATTERS AND DIRECT TAX MATTERS OT HER THAN INCOME TAX. FILING OF APPEALS IN OTHER DIRECT TAX MATTERS SHALL CONTINUE TO BE GOVERNED BY RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF STATUTE & RULES. FURTHER, FILING OF A PPEAL IN CASES OF INCOME TAX, WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS NOT QUANTIFIABLE OR NOT INVOLVED, SUCH AS THE CASE OF REGISTRATION OF TRUSTS OR INSTITUTIONS UNDER SECTIO N 12A OF THE IT ACT, 1961, SHALL NOT BE GOVERNED BY T HE LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 ABOVE AND DECISION TO F ILE APPEAL IN SUCH CASES MAY 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 INCOM E-TAX ACT 1961. DY. CIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPALL- I .T.A.NO. 329/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 & C.O.NO.35/IND/2015 7 7 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CIRCULAR, SINCE THE TAX EFFEC T INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE THE ITAT, THEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSE D IN LIMINE BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF ABOVE CIRCULAR NO. 21/20145 DATED 10.12.2015. 4. WE FURTHER FIND THAT HONBLE 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 T HE 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 DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO INCREASED TO A TREMENDOUS EXTENT. THE CORRIDORS OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS ARE CHOCKED WITH HUGE PENDENCY OF CASES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE BOARD HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN A DECISION NOT TO FILE REFERENCES IF THE TAX EFFECT L ESS THAN RS. 2 LAKHS. THE SAME POLICY FOR OLD MATTERS NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN OUR VIEW, THE BOARDS CIRCULAR DATED MARCH 27, 2000 IS DY. CIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPALL- I .T.A.NO. 329/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 & C.O.NO.35/IND/2015 8 8 VERY MUCH APPLICABLE EVEN TO THE OLD REFERENCES WHICH ARE STILL UNDECIDED. THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PROCEEDING WITH THE OLD REFERENCES WHEREIN THE TAX IMPACT IS MINIMAL. THUS, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO PROCEEDS WITH DECADES OLD REFERENCES HAVING NEGLIGIBLE TAX EFFECT. SIMILARLY, HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SURESHCHANDRA DURGAPRASAD KHATOD (HUF) (2012) 253 CTR 492 (GUJ) HAS SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED INSTRUCTION NO. 3/2011 AND HELD THAT THE SAME WOULD APPLY TO PENDING CASES AS WELL EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A SPECIFIC CONDITION IN THAT INSTRUCTION ALSO THAT THE SAME WOULD APPLY TO APPEALS FILED ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY, 2011. HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER:- 6. THE QUESTION ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 HAD BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE AURANGABAD BENCH OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2007, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SMT. VIJAYA V. KAVEKAR DECIDED ON 29.7.2011. THE DIVISION BENCH, AFTER CONSIDERING DY. CIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPALL- I .T.A.NO. 329/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 & C.O.NO.35/IND/2015 9 9 EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS AND VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COURTS ON INSTRUCTIONS, RELYING ON THE DECISION IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) REPORTED IN (2010) 229 CTR (BOM) 77, HAS HELD IN PARAGRAPHS 9, 10, 11, 14 AND 17 AS UNDER: '9. AS STATED EARLIER, THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS AMENDED AND SECTION 268A HAS BEEN INTRODUCED ON THE STATUTE BOOK WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. SECTION 268A CARVES OUT AN EXCEPTION FOR FILING OF APPEALS AND REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 260 A OF THE ACT. THE LEGISLATURE HAS PRESCRIBED THAT THE CBDT IS EMPOWERED TO ISSUE CIRCULARS AND INSTRUCTIONS FROM TIME TO TIME, WITH REGARD TO FILING OF APPEALS DEPENDING ON THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED. THEREAFTER, IN 2008, CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 5 OF 2008 DATED 15TH MAY, 2008 WAS ISSUED. THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) REPORTED IN '(2010) 229 CTR (BOM) 77, INTERPRETED THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR. THE CIRCULA R WAS ISSUED IN SUPERSESSION OF ALL EARLIER INSTRUCTI ONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD. THE MONETARY LIMIT WAS INCREASED AND APPEALS WERE TO BE FILED UNDER SECTIO N 260A, THEREAFTER, ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFEC T EXCEEDED RS. 4 LACS. PARAGRAPH 11 OF THAT INSTRUCTION STIPULATED THAT IT WAS APPLICABLE TO APPEALS FILED ON OR AFTER 15TH MAY, 2008. IT WAS DY. CIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPALL- I .T.A.NO. 329/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 & C.O.NO.35/IND/2015 10 10 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 TH E REVENUE IN THAT CASE WAS, THAT THE INSTRUCTION ISSU ED 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 RS. 4 LACS. IT WAS SUBMITTED, SUCH APPEALS WHICH WERE FILED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF INSTRUCTION AND WHER E SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW WERE RAISED, WERE REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS. THE COURT, WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OBSERVED THAT PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE CIRCULAR MADE IT CLEAR THAT NO APPEALS WOULD BE FILED IN THE CASES INVOLVING TAX EFFECT LESS THAN R S. 4 LACS NOTWITHSTANDING THE ISSUE BEING OF RECURRING NATURE. RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT IN CIT V/S POLYCOT T CORPORATION, THE COURT OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: '6 THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL VERDICT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE CIRCULAR DT. 15TH MAY, 2008 IN GENERAL AND PARA (5) THEREOF IN PARTICULAR LAY DOWN THAT EVEN IF THE SAME ISSUE, IN RESPECT OF SAME ASSESSEE, FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS IS INVOLVED, EVEN THEN THE DY. CIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPALL- I .T.A.NO. 329/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 & C.O.NO.35/IND/2015 11 11 DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT FILE APPEAL, IF THE TAX EFFEC T IS LESS THAN RS. 4 LAKHS. IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN IF THE QUESTION OF LAW IS OF RECURRING NATURE EVEN THEN, T HE REVENUE IS NOT EXPECTED TO FILE APPEALS IN SUCH CAS ES, IF THE TAX IMPACT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT F IXED BY THE CBDT.' 7. ONE FAILS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE REVENUE, ON THE FACE OF THE ABOVE CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT, CAN CONTEND THAT THE CIRCULAR DT. 15TH MAY, 2008 ISSUED BY THE CBDT IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASES FILED AFTER 15TH MAY, 2008 AND IN COMPLIANCE THEREOF, THEY DO NOT FILE APPEALS, IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS . 4 LAKHS; BUT THE SAID CIRCULAR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO T HE CASES FILED PRIOR TO 15TH MAY, 2008 I.E. TO THE OLD PENDING APPEALS, EVEN IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THA N RS. 4 LAKHS. IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO LOGIC BEHIND THIS BELIEF ENTERTAINED BY THE REVENUE.' THE COURT HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE PREVAILING INSTRUCTIONS FIXING THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR THE TAX EFFECT WOULD HOLD GOOD EVEN FOR PENDING CASES. ACCORDINGLY , THE COURT DISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS HAVING A TAX EFFECT OF LESS THAN RS. 4 LACS. 10. THE NEW CBDT INSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON 9TH FEBRUARY, 2011, BEING INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011 . THE MONETARY LIMIT HAS BEEN RAISED AGAIN AND CLAUSE 3 OF THE INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDES THAT APPEALS SHALL N OT DY. CIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPALL- I .T.A.NO. 329/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 & C.O.NO.35/IND/2015 12 12 BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXC EED THE MONETARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED, HENCEFORTH. THE MONETARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED FOR FILING AN APPEAL UND ER SECTION 260A BEFORE THE HIGH COURT HAS BEEN RAISED TO RS. 10 LACS. THIS INSTRUCTION IS IDENTICAL TO TH E CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 5 OF 2008. CLAUSE 10 OF THIS CIRCULAR INDICATES THAT MONETARY LIMITS WOULD NOT APPLY TO WRIT MATTERS AND DIRECT TAX MATTERS OTHER THAN INCOME TAX. IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS NOT QUANTIFIABLE, THE DEPARTMENT SHOU LD TAKE A DECISION TO FILE APPEALS ON MERITS OF EACH C ASE. CLAUSE 11, AGAIN PROVIDES THAT THE INSTRUCTION WOUL D 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- DY. CIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPALL- I .T.A.NO. 329/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 & C.O.NO.35/IND/2015 13 13 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 RS. 10 LACS WOU LD BE APPLICABLE TO PENDING CASES ALSO. 17. IT IS TRUE THAT THIS JUDGEMENT IN CHHAJER'S CAS E (SUPRA) WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE DIVISI ON BENCH, WHILE DECIDING EITHER MADHUKAR'S CASE (SUPRA ) OR THE CASE OF POLYCOT CORPORATION (SUPRA). HOWEVER , THE INSTRUCTION OF 2005 WHICH WAS CONSIDERED IN CHHAJER'S CASE HAS ALSO BEEN INTERPRETED IN POLYCOT CORPORATION (SUPRA). THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE COU RT HAS BEEN THAT THE CBDT INSTRUCTION WOULD APPLY TO PENDING CASES AS WELL. THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF SUCH INSTRUCTIONS IS TO REDUCE THE PENDING LITIGATION WH ERE THE TAX EFFECT IS CONSIDERABLY SMALL. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE TAX APPEALS ARE REQUIRED TO BE DISMISS ED, AS THEY ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME TAX, AND THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011.' 7. THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.3191 OF 2005 IN THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX VS. M/S. RANKA&RANKA DECIDED ON 2.11.2011, WHEREIN THE DIVISION BENCH HAS CONSIDERED INSTRUCTION NO.3 AND THE NATIONAL LITIGATION, POLICY, HAD HELD AS UNDER: DY. CIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPALL- I .T.A.NO. 329/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 & C.O.NO.35/IND/2015 14 14 '(I) INSTRUCTION NO.3/11 IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE PENDING APPEALS. (II) AS THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF MONETARY LIMIT, WITHOUT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM, MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS AT LIBERTY TO PROCEED AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE IN FUTURE, IF THERE ANY AMOUNT DUE FRO M THE ASSESSEE, ON SIMILAR ISSUE AND IF IT IS ABOVE T HE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED.' 5. WE ALSO FIND FROM THE ABOVE CASE LAW OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SURESH CHANDRA DURGAPRASAD KHATOD (HUF) ( SUPRA ) THAT IN THE SIMILAR SITUATION, EXACTLY IDENTICAL INSTRUCTIONS WERE APPLIED TO THE APPEALS FILED RETROSPECTIVELY. HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS DISCUSSED THAT ALMOST ALL HIGH COURTS ARE OF THE UNANIMOUS VIEW, CONSIDERING THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF SUCH INSTRUCTIONS THAT TO REDUCE THE PENDING LITIGATI ON, WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS CONSIDERABLE LOW OR SMALL, TH E APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE RECENT INSTRUCTION DY. CIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPALL- I .T.A.NO. 329/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 & C.O.NO.35/IND/2015 15 15 REVISING THE MONETARY LIMIT TO RS. 10 LAKHS FOR FILI NG APPEAL BEFORE ITAT ON INCOME TAX MATTERS, AS ISSUED VIDE THE ABOVE CIRCULAR WILL APPLY TO PENDING APPEALS ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAME IS EXACTLY IDENTICAL T O EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE LATEST CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, SINCE THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL I S BELOW THE MONETARY LIMIT, THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THIS DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN LIMINE BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 8. SINCE THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME IS ALSO DISMISSED. DY. CIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI BABULAL SHUKLA, BHOPALL- I .T.A.NO. 329/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 & C.O.NO.35/IND/2015 16 16 THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 2015. SD/- (B.C.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH DECEMBER, 2015. CPU*