THE DCIT- 1(1), Ujjain V. SMT. GURUCHARAN KAUR OBEROI, Ujjain

ITA 140/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5673 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Keywords: Audit objection; Question of law; Tax effect
• Section: 260A; 12A

Judgement Text

GURCHARAN KAUR ITA 140 OF 2015 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER A ND SHRI B.C. MEENA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 140/IND/2015 A.Y.2011-12 DCIT-1(1), UJJAIN ::: APPELLANT VS SMT. GURUCHARAN KAUR OBEROI, UJJAIN PAN AAIPO 5785 C ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI R.A.VERMA RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 17.3.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.3.2016 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-UJJAIN, DATED 31.12.2014. 2. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT REC ENTLY THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 21/20145 ISSUED ON 10.12.2015 HAS REVI SED THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE ITAT FIXING THE TAX EFFECT LIMIT AT RS.10 LACS. THE SAID CIRCULAR IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENC E: - CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 F NO 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ (PT) CENTRAL BOARD DIRECT TAXES NEW DELHI THE 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 GURCHARAN KAUR ITA 140 OF 2015 2 SUBJECT : REVISION OF MONETARY LIMITS FOR FIL ING OF APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A ND HIGH COURTS AND SLP BEFORE 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 FI LING DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS (IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS) BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 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 AND HIGH COURTS AND SLP BEFORE T HE SUPREME COURT KEEPING IN VIEW THE MONETARY LIMITS AND CONDI TIONS SPECIFIED BELOW. 3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/ SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS GIVE N 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 MONETARY LIMITS PR ESCRIBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH CASES 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 THE TAX THAT W OULD HAVE BEEN CHARGEABLE HAD SUCH TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUCED BY TH E AMOUNT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES AGAINST WHICH APPEA L IS INTENDED TO BE FILED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS DISPUTED ISSU ES). HOWEVER THE TAX WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY INTEREST THEREON, EXCEPT W HERE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST ITSELF IS IN DISPUTE. IN CASE THE CHARG EABILITY OF INTEREST IS THE ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE, THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST SHA LL BE THE TAX EFFECT. IN CASES WHERE RETURNED LOSS IS REDUCED OR ASSESSED AS INCOME, THE TAX EFFECT WOULD INCLUDE NOTIONAL TAX O N DISPUTED GURCHARAN KAUR ITA 140 OF 2015 3 ADDITIONS. IN CASE OF PENALTY ORDERS, THE TAX EFFEC T 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 IS SUES IN THE CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE. IF, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, THE DISPUTED ISSUES ARISE IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPE AL, CAN BE FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHIC H THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES EXCEEDS THE MONET ARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN PARA 3. NO APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RE SPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT 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 COM POSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH INVOLV ES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND COMMON ISSUES IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS EVEN IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBE D 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 SEP ARATELY. 6. IN A CASE WHERE APPEAL BEFORE A TRIBUNAL OR A CO URT IS NOT FILED ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE TAX EFFECT BEING LESS THAN T HE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED ABOVE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SHA LL SPECIFICALLY RECORD THAT EVEN THOUGH THE DECISION IS NOT ACCEPT ABLE, APPEAL IS NOT BEING FILED ONLY ON THE CONSIDERATION THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN THIS INSTRUCTI ON. FURTHER, IN SUCH CASES, THERE WILL BE NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE INCOME -TAX DEPARTMENT HAS ACQUIESCED IN THE DECISION ON THE DISPUTED ISSU ES. THE INCOME- TAX DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT BE PRECLUDED FROM FILING A N APPEAL AGAINST THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSE E FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, OR IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER ASSESS EE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, IF THE TAX EFFECT EXC EEDS THE SPECIFIED MONETARY LIMITS. 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 HA S IMPLICITLY ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL OR COURT IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR OR IN THE CA SE OF ANY OTHER ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, BY NOT FILING AN APPEAL ON THE SAME DISPUTED ISSUES. THE DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVES/COUNSELS MUST MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO BRING TO THE GURCHARAN KAUR ITA 140 OF 2015 4 NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT THAT THE APPEAL IN SUCH CASES WAS NOT FILED OR NOT ADMITTED ONLY FOR THE REASON OF TH E TAX EFFECT BEING LESS THAN THE SPECIFIED MONETARY LIMIT AND, THEREFO RE, NO INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN THAT THE DECISIONS RENDERED THEREIN WERE ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THEY SHO ULD IMPRESS UPON THE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT THAT SUCH CASES DO N OT HAVE ANY PRECEDENT VALUE. AS THE EVIDENCE OF NOT FILING APPE AL DUE TO THIS INSTRUCTION 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. 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 LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 ABOVE OR THERE IS NO TAX EFFECT: (A) WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROV ISIONS OF AN ACT OR RULE ARE UNDER CHALLENGE, OR (B) WHERE BOARDS ORDER, NOTIFICATION, INSTRUCTIO N 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 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 OTHER THAN INCO ME TAX. FILING OF APPEALS IN OTHER DIRECT TAX MATTERS SHALL CONTINUE TO BE GOVERNED BY RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF STATUTE & RULES. FURTHER, FI LING OF APPEAL IN CASES OF INCOME TAX, WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS NOT QU ANTIFIABLE OR NOT INVOLVED, SUCH AS THE CASE OF REGISTRATION OF TRUST S OR INSTITUTIONS UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE IT ACT, 1961, SHALL NOT BE GOVERNED BY THE 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/ TRIB UNALS. PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMITS IN PARA 3 AB OVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPREME C OURT WILL BE GURCHARAN KAUR ITA 140 OF 2015 5 GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERA TIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. 11. THIS ISSUES UNDER SECTION 268A (1) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT 1961. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CIRCULAR, SINCE THE TAX EFF ECT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT FOR F ILING OF APPEALS BEFORE THE ITAT, THEREFORE, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF ABOVE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 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 02.08.201 0 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 LITI GATION EXPENSES HAS GONE UP, THE ASSESSEES ON THE FILE OF THE DEPARTMEN TS HAVE BEEN INCREASED CONSEQUENTLY, THE BURDEN ON THE DEPARTMEN T HAS ALSO INCREASED TO A TREMENDOUS EXTENT. THE CORRIDORS OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS ARE CHOCKED WITH HUGE PENDENCY OF CASES. IN THIS V IEW OF THE MATTER, THE BOARD HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN A DECISION NOT TO FILE REFERENCES IF THE TAX EFFECT LESS THAN RS. 2 LAKHS. THE SAME POLICY FOR OLD MATTERS NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN OUR VIEW, THE BOA RDS CIRCULAR DATED MARCH 27, 2000 IS VERY MUCH APPLICABLE EVEN TO THE OLD REFERENCES WHICH ARE STILL UNDECIDED. THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT J USTIFIED IN PROCEEDING WITH THE OLD REFERENCES WHEREIN THE TAX IMPACT IS M INIMAL. THUS, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO PROCEEDS WITH DECADES OLD RE FERENCES HAVING NEGLIGIBLE TAX EFFECT. SIMILARLY, HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT V. SURESHCHANDRA DURGAPRASAD KHATOD (HUF) (2012) 253 CTR 492 (GUJ) H AS SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED INSTRUCTION NO. 3/2011 AND HELD THAT THE SAME WOULD APPLY TO PENDING CASES AS WELL EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A SPECI FIC CONDITION IN THAT GURCHARAN KAUR ITA 140 OF 2015 6 INSTRUCTION ALSO THAT THE SAME WOULD APPLY TO APPEA LS FILED ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY, 2011. HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED T HIS ISSUE AS UNDER:- 6. THE QUESTION ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 HAD BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE AURANGABAD BENCH OF T HE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2007, THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX V. SMT. VIJAYA V. KAVEKAR DECIDED ON 29.7.2011. THE DI VISION BENCH, AFTER CONSIDERING EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS AND VARIOUS DECISI ONS OF THE COURTS ON INSTRUCTIONS, RELYING ON THE DECISION IN COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX VS. MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) REPORTED IN (2010) 229 CT R (BOM) 77, HAS HELD IN PARAGRAPHS 9, 10, 11, 14 AND 17 AS UNDER: '9. AS STATED EARLIER, THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS AMEND ED AND SECTION 268A HAS BEEN INTRODUCED ON THE STATUTE BOOK WITH R ETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. SECTION 268A CARVES OUT AN EXCEPTION FOR FI LING OF APPEALS AND REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 260 A OF THE ACT. THE LEGI SLATURE HAS PRESCRIBED THAT THE CBDT IS EMPOWERED TO ISSUE CIRC ULARS AND INSTRUCTIONS FROM TIME TO TIME, WITH REGARD TO FILI NG 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 'COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX V/S MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) REPORTED IN '(201 0) 229 CTR (BOM) 77, INTERPRETED THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR. THE C IRCULAR WAS ISSUED IN SUPERSESSION OF ALL EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD. THE MONETARY LIMIT WAS INCREASED AND APPEALS WERE TO BE FILED UNDER SECTION 260A, THEREAFTER, ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE T AX EFFECT EXCEEDED RS. 4 LACS. PARAGRAPH 11 OF THAT INSTRUCTION STIPUL ATED THAT IT WAS APPLICABLE TO APPEALS FILED ON OR AFTER 15TH MAY, 2 008. IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT IN CASES, WHERE APPEALS WERE FILED BE FORE 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 THE REVENUE IN THAT CASE WAS, THAT THE INSTRUCTION ISSUED ON 15TH MAY, 2008 DID N OT PRECLUDE THE DEPARTMENT FROM CONTINUING WITH THE APPEALS AND/OR PETITIONS FILED PRIOR TO 15TH MAY, 2008, IF THEY INVOLVED A SUBSTAN TIAL QUESTION OF LAW OF A RECURRING NATURE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THA T THE TOTAL CUMULATIVE GURCHARAN KAUR ITA 140 OF 2015 7 TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS WAS LESS THAN RS . 4 LACS. IT WAS SUBMITTED, SUCH APPEALS WHICH WERE FILED PRIOR TO T HE ISSUANCE OF INSTRUCTION AND WHERE 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 MAD E IT CLEAR THAT NO APPEALS WOULD BE FILED IN THE CASES INVOLVING TAX E FFECT LESS THAN RS. 4 LACS NOTWITHSTANDING THE ISSUE BEING OF RECURRING N ATURE. RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT IN CIT V/S POLYCOTT 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 SAM E ASSESSEE, FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS IS INVOLVED, EVEN THEN T HE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT FILE APPEAL, IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS T HAN RS. 4 LAKHS. IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN IF THE QUESTION OF LAW IS OF RECU RRING NATURE EVEN THEN, THE REVENUE IS NOT EXPECTED TO FILE APPEALS I N SUCH CASES, IF THE TAX IMPACT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT FIXE D BY THE CBDT.' 7. ONE FAILS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE REVENUE, ON THE FACE OF THE ABOVE CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT, CAN CONTE ND THAT THE CIRCULAR DT. 15TH MAY, 2008 ISSUED BY THE CBDT IS A PPLICABLE TO THE CASES FILED AFTER 15TH MAY, 2008 AND IN COMPLIA NCE THEREOF, THEY DO NOT FILE APPEALS, IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 4 LAKHS; BUT THE SAID CIRCULAR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE S FILED PRIOR TO 15TH MAY, 2008 I.E. TO THE OLD PENDING APPEALS, EVE N IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN 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 INST RUCTIONS FIXING THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR THE TAX EFFECT WOULD HOLD GOOD E VEN FOR PENDING CASES. ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT DISMISSED ALL THE APP EALS HAVING A TAX EFFECT OF LESS THAN RS. 4 LACS. 10. THE NEW CBDT INSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2011, BEING INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011. THE MONETARY LIMIT HAS BEEN RAISED AGAIN AND CLAUSE 3 OF THE INSTRUCTIONS PROVI DES THAT APPEALS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DO ES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED, HENCEFORTH. THE MONETAR Y LIMITS GURCHARAN KAUR ITA 140 OF 2015 8 PRESCRIBED FOR FILING AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260A BEFORE THE HIGH COURT HAS BEEN RAISED TO RS. 10 LACS. THIS INSTRUCT ION IS IDENTICAL TO THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 5 OF 2008. CLAUSE 10 OF TH IS CIRCULAR INDICATES THAT MONETARY LIMITS WOULD NOT APPLY TO W RIT MATTERS AND DIRECT TAX MATTERS OTHER THAN INCOME TAX. IT FURTHE R PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS NOT QUANTIFIABLE, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD TAKE A DECISION TO FILE APPEALS ON MERITS OF EACH CASE. CL AUSE 11, AGAIN PROVIDES THAT THE INSTRUCTION WOULD APPLY TO APPEAL S 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. MADHUKARINA MDAR (SUPRA), THE SAME PRINCIPLES MUST APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASES ALS O, AS WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF 15TH MAY, 2008 IS PA RA- 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 MA RCH 03, 2011, BY RELYING ON ITS EARLIER JUDGEMENT 'COMMISSIONER INCO ME TAX DELHI-III V/S M/S P.S. JAIN AND CO. DECIDED ON 2ND AUGUST, 20 10 HAS HELD THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR RAISING THE MONETARY LIMIT OF THE TAX EFFECT TO RS. 10 LACS WOULD 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 DIVISION BENCH, WHILE DECIDING EITHER MADHUKAR'S CASE (SUPRA) OR THE CASE OF POLYCOT CORP ORATION (SUPRA). HOWEVER, THE INSTRUCTION OF 2005 WHICH WAS CONSIDER ED IN CHHAJER'S CASE HAS ALSO BEEN INTERPRETED IN POLYCOT CORPORATI ON (SUPRA). THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE COURT 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 DISMISSED, AS THEY ARE NOT MAINTAINA BLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME TAX, AND T HE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011.' 7. THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE KARNATAKA HI GH COURT IN ITA NO.3191 OF 2005 IN THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX VS. M/S. GURCHARAN KAUR ITA 140 OF 2015 9 RANKA&RANKA DECIDED ON 2.11.2011, WHEREIN THE DIVIS ION BENCH HAS CONSIDERED INSTRUCTION NO.3 AND THE NATIONAL LITIGA TION, POLICY, HAD HELD AS UNDER: '(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 MONETA RY LIMIT, WITHOUT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM, MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS AT LI BERTY TO PROCEED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN FUTURE, IF THERE AN Y AMOUNT DUE FROM THE ASSESSEE, ON SIMILAR ISSUE AND IF IT I S ABOVE THE 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 W ERE APPLIED TO THE APPEALS FILED RETROSPECTIVELY. HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS DIS CUSSED THAT ALMOST ALL HIGH COURTS ARE OF THE UNANIMOUS VIEW, CONSIDERING THE M AIN OBJECTIVE OF SUCH INSTRUCTIONS THAT TO REDUCE THE PENDING LITIGATION, WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS CONSIDERABLE LOW OR SMALL, THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTA INABLE. THE RECENT INSTRUCTION REVISING THE MONETARY LIMIT TO RS. 10 L AKHS FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE ITAT ON INCOME TAX MATTERS, AS ISSUED VIDE THE ABOV E CIRCULAR WILL APPLY TO PENDING APPEALS ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAME I S EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE LATEST C IRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, SINCE THE TAX EFFECT INV OLVED IN THE PRESENT GURCHARAN KAUR ITA 140 OF 2015 10 APPEAL IS BELOW THE MONETARY LIMIT, WE DISMISS THIS DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN LIMINE BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED, BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 17 TH MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17.3.2016 !VYS! COPY TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CONCERNED CIT(A) 4.CO NCERNED CIT 5.DR, INDORE