Commissioner of Income Tax - I V. M/s. Gudela Estates,

ITTA/334/2008

AI Insights

This batch of appeals addressed an error in a common order issued by the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which incorrectly dismissed all appeals, including those that were below the monetary limits set by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The Department of Income Tax filed these appeals to correct this oversight. The court reviewed the submissions and the relevant CBDT circular, which stipulated that appeals involving tax effects below Rs. 1,00,000 should not be pursued. It was found that 35 out of the 41 appeals fell below this threshold and should not have been included in the dismissal. The court directed that the Tribunal's order be amended to reflect this exclusion.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 728056 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Section 268A of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: S R ASHOK
• Keywords: Appeals; CBDT Circular; Exemption Clause; Income Tax; Monetary limits
• Section: 268A

Judgement Text

"THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A. Nos. 297 of 2003, 94, 113, 123, 130 of 2004, 200 of 2005 and 334 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) This batch of appeals is filed mostly for correction of an error that has crept into the common order, dated 31.01.2003, passed by the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in I.T.A.No.115/V/2000 and Batch. A Batch of 41 appeals is preferred by the Department before the Tribunal. On verification of the subject matter of the appeals, it was found that the subject matter of as many as 35 appeals is less than the limits stipulated by the Central Board of the Direct Taxes (CBDT) and in para ‘9’, it was observed that those 35 appeals shall stand removed from the purview of the common order. However, in the result portion of the order, it was observed that all the appeals are dismissed. Hence, this batch of appeals in respect of those matters. Heard Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. A thorough verification was undertaken about the subject matter of the individual appeals, which were filed in a Batch. Even the Departmental Representative has agreed that in the batch of 41 cases, the subject matter of 35 cases is within the limits stipulated by the CBDT in its circular, dated 27.03.2000. The relevant portion reads as under: “We have considered the submissions made by the learned DR, the written submissions filed by him and the case laws referred to. As pointed out in para- 4 of this order, the learned DR has urged to exclude 41 cases out of the purview of this order-35 cases due to monetary limits being more than Rs.1,00,000/- and six cases falling under exemption clause IV. However, no evidence is produced to show that the 6 cases fall under the exemption clause IV. Hence, these cases cannot be excluded. However, keeping in view the contention of the learned DR about the tax effect in 35 cases, we are excluding 35 cases from the purview of this order.” The same reveals that the Departmental Representative himself admitted that 35 appeals need to be taken away from the Batch, since they are covered by the instructions of the CBDT. However, obviously due to oversight, in the concluding portion of the order, the Tribunal observed that all the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed in limini, without considering the same on merits. The discussion undertaken by the Tribunal on merits, at the most, would cover six cases that remained after exclusion of the Batch of 35 cases. We, therefore, dispose of the appeals directing that the order passed by the Tribunal has covered only those cases, which are not within Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these appeals shall also stand disposed of. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J _______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J Dt:18.11.2014 kdl "