DCIT 25(1), MUMBAI V. SEJAL P. MATALIA, MUMBAI

ITA 168/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 16819914 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Keywords: Audit objection; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Tax effect
• Section: 12; 260A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E , BENCH MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA , A M & MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA , J M ./ I TA NO. 168 / MUM/20 1 4 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 4 - 05 ) DCIT 25(1), MUMBAI VS. SMT. SEJAL P. MATALIA, B - 201, NEW STERLING CHS LTD., CROSS RD., B/H ANAND NAGAR, DAHISAR(E) , MUMBAI - 68 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A KCPM 8990 R ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /REVENUE BY : SHRI NEIL PHILIP /ASSESSEE BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 11 /0 6 / 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11 /06 /2015 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER CIT (A), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 , IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S.1 43 (3) R.W.S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2 . AFTER GOING THROUGH THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE R EVENUE, WE FOUND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN 4 LAKHS. 3 . I N VIEW OF THE RECENT INSTRUCTION NO. 5/2014 ISSUED BY CBDT ON 10 - 7 - 2014 REVISING MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE ITAT FIXING THE TAX EFFECT LIMIT OF RS. 4 LACS, THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE ONLY ISSUE NOW REMAINS BEFORE US IS, WHETHER, ITA NO. 168 /1 4 2 THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE, WHICH IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF TAX EFFECT IN VIEW OF THE BOARD'S INSTRUCTION NO.5/2014 ISSUED ON 10 - 7 - 2014 REVI SING THE MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING OF APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE ITAT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT. 4 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. P.S. JAIN & CO. (2011) 335 ITR 591 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'THIS COURT CA N VERY WELL TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE 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 ALS O 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 LESS THAN RS. 2 LAKHS. THE SAME PO LICY FOR OLD MATTERS NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN OUR VIEW, THE BOARD'S CIRCULAR DATED 27 - 3 - 2000 IS VERY MUCH APPLICABLE EVEN TO THE OLD REFERENCES WHICH ARE STILL UNDECIDED. THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PROCEEDING WITH THE OLD REFERENCE S WHEREIN THE TAX IMPACT IS MINIMAL. THUS, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO PROCEEDS WITH DECADES OLD REFERENCES HAVING NEGLIGIBLE TAX EFFECT.' 5 . SIMILARLY, HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SURESHCHANDRA DURGAPRASAD KHATOD (HUF) (2014) 363 ITR 556/(2013) 214 TAXMAN 59 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 FILE ON OR AFT ER FEBRUARY, 2011. HON'BLE 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 C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SMT. VIJAYA V. KAVEKAR DECIDED ON 29 - 7 - 2011. THE DIVISION BENCH, AFTER CONSIDERING EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS AND VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COURTS ON INSTRUCTIONS, RELYING ON THE DECISION IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. ITA NO. 168 /1 4 3 MADHUKAR K. I NAMDAR (HUF) (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 IN VOLVED. THEREAFTER, IN 2008, CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 5 OF 2008 DATED 15 - 5 - 2008 WAS ISSUED. THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF ' COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) (2010) 229 CTR (BOM) 77 , INTERPRETED THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR. THE CIRCULAR 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 TAX EFFECT EXCEEDED RS. 4 LACS. PARAGRAPH 11 OF THAT INSTRUCTION STIPULAT ED THAT IT WAS APPLICABLE TO APPEALS FILED ON OR AFTER 15 - 5 - 2008. IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT IN CASES, WHERE APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE 15 - 5 - 2008, THEY WOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT WHICH WERE OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL S 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 15 - 5 - 2008 DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DEPARTMENT FROM CONTINUING WITH THE APPEALS AND/O R PETITIONS FILED PRIOR TO 15 - 5 - 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 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 MADE IT CLEAR THAT NO APPEALS WOULD BE FILED IN THE CASES INVOLVING TAX EFFECT LESS THAN RS. 4 LACS NOTWITHSTANDING THE ISSUE BEING OF RECURRING NATURE. RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT IN CIT V. POLYCOTT CORPORATION , THE COURT OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: '6 THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL VERDICT MAKES IT CLEAR T HAT THE CIRCULAR DT. 15 - 5 - 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 DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT FILE APPEAL, IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LE SS THAN RS. 4 LAKHS. IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN IF THE QUESTION OF LAW IS OF RECURRING NATURE EVEN THEN, THE REVENUE IS NOT EXPECTED TO FILE APPEALS IN SUCH CASES, IF THE TAX IMPACT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT FIXED BY THE CBDT.' 7. ONE FAILS TO UNDERSTAND H OW THE REVENUE, ON THE FACE OF THE ABOVE CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT, CAN CONTEND THAT THE CIRCULAR DT. 15 - 5 - 2008 ISSUED BY THE CBDT IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASES FILED AFTER 15 - 5 - 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 THE CASES FILED PRIOR TO 15 - 5 - 2008 I.E. TO THE OLD PENDING APPEALS, EVEN ITA NO. 168 /1 4 4 IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 4 LAKHS. IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO LOGIC BEHIND THIS BELIEF ENTERTAINED BY THE R EVENUE.' 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 9 - 2 - 2011, BEING INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011 . THE MONETARY LIMIT HAS BEEN RAISED AGAIN AND CLAUSE 3 OF THE INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDES THAT APPEALS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETA RY LIMITS PRESCRIBED, HENCEFORTH. THE MONETARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED FOR FILING AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260A BEFORE THE HIGH COURT HAS BEEN RAISED TO RS. 10 LACS. THIS INSTRUCTION IS IDENTICAL TO THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 5 OF 2008. CLAUSE 10 OF THIS CIRCULAR I NDICATES 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 SHOULD TAKE A DECISION TO FILE APPEALS ON MERITS OF EACH CASE. CLA USE 11, AGAIN PROVIDES THAT THE INSTRUCTION WOULD 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, W HEN A SIMILAR CLAUSE HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN CIT V. MADHUKAR INAMDAR (SUPRA), THE SAME PRINCIPLES MUST APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASES ALSO, AS WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF 15 - 5 - 2008 IS PARA - MATERIAL WITH THE INSTRU CTION OF 9 - 2 - 2011. 14. SIMILARLY, THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. DELHI RACE CLUB LTD.', DECIDED ON 3 - 3 - 2011, BY RELYING ON ITS EARLIER JUDGEMENT ' COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX DELHI - III V. M/S P.S. JAIN AND CO . DECIDED ON 2 - 8 - 2010 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 CASE (SUPRA) WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE DIVISION BENCH, WH ILE 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 COURT HAS BE EN THAT THE CBDT INSTRUCTION WOULD APPLY TO PENDING CASES AS WELL. THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF SUCH INSTRUCTIONS IS TO REDUCE THE PENDING LITIGATION WHERE 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 PROVISIONS 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 V. M /S. RANKA & ITA NO. 168 /1 4 5 RANKA DECIDED ON 2 - 11 - 2011 , WHEREIN THE DIVISION BENCH HAS CONSIDERED INSTRUCTION NO.3 AND THE NATIONAL LITIGATION, POLICY, HAD HELD AS UNDER: '(I) INSTRUCTION NO.3/11 IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE PENDING APPEALS. (II) AS THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INS TANT 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 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN FUTURE, IF THER E ANY AMOUNT DUE FROM THE ASSESSEE, ON SIMILAR ISSUE AND IF IT IS ABOVE THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED.'' 6 . WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE CASE LAW OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SURESHCHANDRA DURGAPRASAD KHATOD (HUF), (SUPRA) THAT IN THE SIMILAR SIT UATION AND EXACTLY IDENTICAL INSTRUCTIONS WERE APPLIED TO THE RETROSPECTIVELY PENDING APPEALS ALSO . HON'BLE 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 LITIGATION, WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS CONSIDERABLE LOW OR SMALL, THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE RECENT INSTRUCTION REVISING THE MONETARY LIMIT TO RS. 4 LAKH FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE ITAT ON INCOME TAX MATTERS, AS ISSUED VIDE INSTRUCTI ON NO.5/2014 FNO279/MISC.142/2007 - ITJ(PT) DATED 10 - 7 - 2014 WILL APPLY TO PENDING APPEALS ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAME IS EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS. THE RELEVANT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT READS AS UNDER: 'REFERENCE IS INVITED TO BOARD'S IN STRUCTION NO 3/2011 DATED 9 - 2 - 2011 WHEREIN MONETARY LIMITS AND OTHER CONDITIONS FOR FILING DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS (IN INCOME - TAX MATTERS) BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HIGH COURTS AND 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, HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURT KEEPING IN VIEW THE MONETARY LIMITS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BELOW. ITA NO. 168 /1 4 6 3. HENCEFORTH APPEALS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES W HERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER: - S NO. APPEALS IN INCOME - TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMITS (IN RS) 1. BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 4,00,000 2. UNDER SECTION 260A BEFORE HIGH COURT 10,00,000 3. BEFORE SUPREME COURT 25,00,0 00 IT IS CLARIFIED THAT AN APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED MERELY BECAUSE THE TAX EFFECT IN A CASE EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH CASES IS TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 4. FOR THIS PURPOSE, 'TAX EFFECT' MEANS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AND THE 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 INTENDED TO BE FILED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'DISPUTED ISSUES'). HOWEVER THE TAX WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY INTEREST THEREON, EXCEPT WHERE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST ITSELF IS IN DISPUTE. IN CASE THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST IS THE ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE, THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST SHALL BE THE TAX EFFECT. IN CA SES WHERE RETURNED LOSS IS REDUCED 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 EFFECT 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 MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL, CAN BE FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES EXCEEDS 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 LES S 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 COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH INV OLVES 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 PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMITS IN ANY OF THE YEAR(S), IF IT IS DECID ED TO FILED APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR(S) IN WHICH 'TAX EFFECT' EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED. IN CASE WHERE A COMPOSITE ORDER/JUDGMENT INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSEE, EACH ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY. 6. IN A CASE WHERE APPEAL BEFO RE A TRIBUNAL OR A COURT IS NOT FILED ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE TAX EFFECT BEING LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED ABOVE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX SHALL SPECIFICALLY RECORD 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 ITA NO. 168 /1 4 7 SPECIFIED IN THIS INSTRUCTION'. FURTHER, IN SUCH CASES, THERE WILL BE NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE INCOME - TAX DEPARTMENT HAS ACQUIESCED IN THE DECISION ON THE DISPUTED ISSUES. THE IN COME - TAX DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT BE PRECLUDED FROM FILING AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, OR IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, IF THE TAX EFFECT E XCEEDS THE SPECIFIED MONETARY LIMITS. 7. IN THE PAST, A NUMBER OF INSTANCES HAVE COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE BARD, WHEREBY AN ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RELIEF FROM THE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS IMPLICITLY ACCEPTED THE DECISI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL OR COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR OR IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER CASE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, BY NOT FILING AN APPEAL ON THE SAME DISPUTED ISSUES. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES/COUNSELS MUST MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO BRING TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT THAT THE APPEAL IN SUCH CASES WAS O TILED OR NOT ADMITTED ONLY FOR THE REASON OF THE TAX EFFECT BEING LESS THAN THE SPECIFIED MONETARY LIMIT AND, THEREFORE, NO INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN THAT THE DECISIONS RENDERED THEREIN WERE ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THEY 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 INSTRUCTION MAY H AVE TO BE PRODUCED IN COURTS, THE JUDICIAL FOLDERS IN THE OFFICE OF CIT MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A SYSTEMIC MANNER FOR EASY RETRIEVAL. 8. ADVERSE JUDGMENTS RELATING TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES SHOULD BE CONTESTED ON MERITS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE TAX EFFECT ENTA ILED IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMITS 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, OR (B) WHERE BOARD'S ORDER, NOTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION 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. 9. THE PROPOSAL FOR FILING SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD, IN ALL CA SES, BE SENT TO THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME - TAX (LEGAL & RESEARCH), NEW DELHI AND THE DECISION TO FILE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION SHALL BE IN CONSULTATION WITH THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE. 10. THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 ABOVE SHALL NOT APPLY TO WRIT MATTERS AND DIRECT TAX MATTERS OTHER THAN INCOME TAX. FILING OF APPEALS IN OTHER DIRECT TAX MATTERS SHALL CONTINUE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF STATUTE & RULES. FURTHER FILING OF APPEAL 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 SECTION 12 A OF THE IT ACT, 1961, SHALL NOT BE GOVERNED BY THE LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PAR 3 ABOVE ITA NO. 168 /1 4 8 AND DECISION TO FILE APPEAL IN SUCH CASES MAY BE TAKEN ON MERI TS OF A PARTICULAR CASE. 11. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY TO APPEALS FILED ON OR AFTER 10 - 7 - 2014. HOWEVER, THE CASES WHERE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE 10 - 7 - 2014 WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. 12. THIS ISSUE UNDER SECTION 268A (1) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT 1961.' 7 . CONSIDERING THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE FOUND THAT THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS BELOW RS.4 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 /06 / 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( . . ) ( R.C.SHARMA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 11 /06 /201 5 . . /PKM , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/