The ACIT, Circle-4, Surat V. M/s. Span Diagnostics Ltd., Surat

ITA 2369/AHD/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1879 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2009
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Gift; Question of law; Tax effect
• Section: 260A; 10

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH DAHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL, A.M. ASSTT. CIT, CIRCLE-4, AAYKAR BHAVAN, ROOM NO.216, MAJURA GATE, SURAT-395001. V/S. M/S SPAN DIAGNOSTICS LTD. 173B NEW INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ROAD NO.6G, UDHNA, SURAT. PAN NO.AADCS3877Q (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR, AR O R D E R PER T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER. THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE ON FOLLO WING COMMON GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-III, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS.2 LACS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATING NET PROFIT AFTER REJECTING TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-IIIM SURAT OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE DEPARTMENTS APPEALS IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. THIS BENCH, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 10.6.2008 IN I.T.A.NOS.335, 338 TO 341/LUC/08 IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS SHRI BRAHMANAND BHASIN, HAS HELD THAT WHERE TAX EFFECT IN DEPARTMENTS A PPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS, DEPARTMENT COULD NOT HAVE FILED THE APP EAL AS PER INSTRUCTIONS OF ITA NOS.2369& & 2370/AND/2004 ASST. YEAR:2000-01 & 2001-02 2 THE GOVERNMENT. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO FOLLOWI NG PORTION FROM THAT JUDGMENT: 10. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT IN ALL THESE APP EALS THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN RESPECT OF DISPUTE IN EACH YEAR IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. THEREFORE, AS PER MONETARY LIMIT, THIS IS C OVERED BY THE LATEST INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE C.B.D.T. AS MENTI ONED ABOVE AND ALSO BOARD'S INSTRUCTIONS NO 1979 DATED 27.3.20 00, NO.1985 DATED 29.6.2000, NO.6 OF 2003 DATED 17.7.2003, NO.1 9 OF 2003 DATED 23.12.2003, NO.5/2004 DATED 27.5.2004, NO.2/2 005 DATED 24.10.2005 AND NO.5/2007 DATED 16.7.2007 WHEREIN MO NETARY LIMIT FOR FILING DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN INCOME-TAX MATTER AND OTHER CONDITIONS WERE SPECIFIED FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURT. ALL THESE INSTRUCTI ONS WERE SUPERCEDED AND FRESH MONETARY LIMITS WERE FIXED FOR THIS PURPOSE. THESE LIMITS CONTAINED IN INSTRUCTION NO 5/2008 DAT ED 15.5.2008. IN THIS REGARD, THE RELEVANT PART OF INSTRUCTIONS C ONTAINED IN PARAS 3, 4 & 5 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- '3. APPEALS WILL HENCEFORTH BE FILED ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT EXCEEDS MONETARY LIMITS GIVEN HEREUN DER:- SL. NO. APPEALS IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS.) 1. APPEAL BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2,00,000/- 2. APPEAL U/S. 260A BEFORE HIGH COURT 4,00,000/- 3. APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT 10,00,000/- 4. FOR THIS PURPOSE, 'TAX EFFECT' MEANS THE DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AND TH E TAX THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGEABLE HAD SUCH TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE AGAINST WHICH APPEAL IS INTEND ED TO BE FILED (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'DISPUTED ISSUES '). HOWEVER, THE TAX WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY INTEREST THER EON. SIMILARLY, IN LOSS CASES NOTIONAL TAX EFFECT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. IN THE CASES 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 SHALL 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 3 MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN PARA 3. NO APPEAL SHAL L BE FILED IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT SPEC IFIED IN PARA 3. IN OTHER WORDS, HENCEFORTH, APPEALS WILL B E FILED ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TAX EFFECT IN THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, IN CASE OF A COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHI CH INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE YEAR, APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS EVEN IF THE 'TAX EF FECT' 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.' 11. EARLIER THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN JU GAL KISHORE ARORA VS. DY C.I.T., [2004] 269 I.T.R. 133 (ALL.) H ELD THAT INSTRUCTIONS OF C.B.D.T. ARE INTERNAL MATTERS OF TH E DEPARTMENT AND ASSESSEE CANNOT OBJECT TO THE FILING OF APPEAL DESPITE SUCH INSTRUCTIONS. IN THIS REGARD, WE REPRODUCE FROM TH E JUDGEMENT AS UNDER:- 'AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD N OT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTION OF T HE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DATED MARCH 27, 2000, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CEN TRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REGARDING FILING OF APPEALS A RE ONLY INTERNAL MATTERS OF THE DEPARTMENT, AND THE ASSESSE E CANNOT OBJECT TO FILING OF AN APPEAL DESPITE SUCH A N INSTRUCTION.' 12. HOWEVER, OTHER HIGH COURTS HAVE TAKEN A DIFFER ENT VIEW AND THEY HAVE HELD THAT INSTRUCTIONS OF C.B.D.T. ARE BI NDING ON THE OFFICERS AND THAT MONETARY LIMITS FIXED BY THE C.B. D.T. FOR FILING APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED. ON THAT BASIS, A PPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE WERE DISMISSED. IN THIS REGARD, WE CONSIDER IT PROPER TO REPRODUCE RELEVANT PART FROM THE FOLLOWIN G JUDGEMENTS. 13. IN THE CASE OF JOINT C.I.T. VS. PEERLESS DEVEL OPERS LTD., [2006] 287 I.T.R. (AT) 153 (SB), THE SPECIAL BENCH OF I.T.A.T., CALCUTTA OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 'THAT SINCE 1987 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES HAD NOT ONLY BEEN TAKING A CONSISTENT APPROACH OF INSTRUCTING ITS OFFICERS NOT TO FILE THE APPEAL WHE RE THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW THE MONETARY LIMIT, BUT SUCH MONETARY LIMIT IS ALSO REVISED UPWARDS FROM TIME TO TIME. THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ONE LAKH OF RUPEES. THE INSTRUCTI ONS OF THE BOARD PRESCRIBING MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING APPEAL 4 BEFORE VARIOUS FORUMS ARE BINDING ON THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. 14. IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. CAMCO COLOUR CO., [ 2002] 254 ITR. 565, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDE R:- 'CIRCULAR F. NO. 279/126/98-ITJ, DATED MARCH 27, 20 00, REFLECTED THE POLICY DECISION TAKEN BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NOT TO RAISE QUESTIONS OF LAW WHERE THE EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES WITH A VIEW TO REDUCE LITIGATIONS BEFORE THE HIGH C OURTS AND THE SUPREME COURT. THE CIRCULAR IS BINDING ON T HE REVENUE. AN APPEAL OR REFERENCE CONTRARY TO THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED IN THE CIRCULAR WILL NOT BE CON SIDERED BY THE COURTS.' 15. IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. PITHWA ENGG. WORKS, [ 2005] 276 I.T.R. 519, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 'THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES BY ITS CIRCULAR DATED MARCH 27, 2000, HAS TAKEN A POLICY DECISION NOT TO FILE REFERENCES IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKH S. THE CIRCULAR IS APPLICABLE EVEN TO THE OLD REFERENCES W HICH ARE STILL UNDECIDED. THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT CONTEND THAT THE CIRCULAR IS BINDING ONLY WITH RESPECT TO T HE NEW CASES AND NOT WITH RESPECT TO THE OLD REFERRED CASE S EVEN IF THE TAX IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. THE SAME P OLICY FOR OLD MATTERS NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT.' 16. IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. DIGVIJAY SINGH, [2007 ] 292 I.T.R. 314, THE HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 'COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT RAISED A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ABOUT THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE APPEALS. ACCORDING TO HIM THE TOTAL TAX EFFECT IN EVERY APPEAL IS AROUND RS. 2,000. HE INVITED THE ATTENTIO N OF HIS COURT TO NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 10 O F THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT APPEAL COULD BE PREFERRED TO THE HIGH COURT IN CASES WHERE A DEBT O F WEALTH-TAX DOES NOT EXCEED RS. 25,000. HE INVITED T HE ATTENTION OF THIS COURT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ZOEB Y. TOPIWALA [2006] 284 ITR 379 ; [2005] 199 CTR 656 WHEREIN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD DATED MARCH 27, 2000 , DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT NOT TO RAISE QUESTIONS OF LAW WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 2 LAKHS IS BINDING ON THE REVENUE. THE APPEAL WHICH WAS FILED HAVING T AX 5 EFFECT LESS THAN RS. 7,000 WAS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT BY HOLDING TH AT THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD ARE BINDING ON T HE DEPARTMENT. THE NEXT CASE RELIED UPON BY HIM IS IN THE CASE OF CIT V. CAMCO COLOUR CO. [2002] 254 ITR 565 ; [2002] 173 CTR 255 IN WHIC H THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS REPRODUCED THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE DATED MARCH 27, 2000, IN WHICH IT IS DIRECTED THAT APPEAL S UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WITH TAX EFFECT LESS THAN RS. 2 LAKHS SHOULD NOT BE PREFERRE D. IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE SAID CIRCULAR IT IS MENTIONED TH AT THE SAID CIRCULAR IS APPLICABLE TO WEALTH-TAX, GIFT-TAX , ESTATE DUTY, ETC. IN THAT CASE ALSO THE APPEAL WAS DISMISS ED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT BY HOLDING THE SAME AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. A NUMBER OF OTHER JUDGMENTS WERE RELI ED UPON BY COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT FOR SUPPORTING HI S ARGUMENTS ON THE SAID QUESTION, INCLUDING CIT V. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. [2002] 256 ITR 1, WHICH IS A FULL BENCH JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT, UCO BANK V. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) ; [1999] 4 SCC 599 AND CIT V. PITHWA ENGINEERING WORKS [2005] 276 ITR 519 (BOM). IN ALL THESE CASES APPEALS WERE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS IS VERY LOW. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE TAX EFFECT I S LESS THAN RS.5,000 PER YEAR HENCE THE APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. HOWEVER, TO COMPLETE THE JUDGMENT WE PROCEED TO DECIDE OTHER GROUNDS.' 17. IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. ZOEB Y. TOPIWALA, [20 06] 284 I.T.R. 379, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 'THE INSTRUCTION OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAX ES DATED MARCH 27, 2000, REFLECTS THE POLICY DECISION TAKEN BY THE BOARD NOT TO RAISE QUESTIONS OF LAW WH ERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED I N THE INSTRUCTIONS WITH A VIEW TO REDUCE LITIGATION BEFOR E THE HIGH COURTS AND THE SUPREME COURT. THE CIRCULAR IS BINDING ON THE REVENUE.' 18. THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. RAJASTHAN PATRIKA LTD. [2002] 258 I.T.R. 300, HELD THAT THOUGH NO APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED WHERE TAX EFFECT I S LESS THAN LIMIT PRESCRIBED, BUT THE HIGH COURT OUGHT NOT TO D ISMISS THE APPEAL OR REJECT REFERENCE. THE RELEVANT PORTION O F HEAD NOTES ARE AS UNDER:- 6 'HELD _ ALSO, THAT IF, IN SPITE OF ADMINISTRATIVE I NSTRUCTIONS IN A CIRCULAR OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES TO THE EFFECT THAT NO APPEAL SHOULD BE FILED WHEN THE TAX EFFECT IS NOT MORE THAN RS.50,000, THE DEPARTMENT PREFERS TO FILE AN APPEAL OR TAKE A REFERENCE TO THE HIGH COUR T, ON SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS THE HIGH COURT OUG HT NOT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OR REJECT THE REFERENCE. THER E IS NO INFIRMITY IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OR REFERENCE O N THE MERITS.' 19. BUT NOW IN THE LATEST JUDGMENT, THE HON'BLE AL LAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE TAX LIABILITY IS LESS THA N RS.5 LAKHS, SUCH MATTER NEED NOT BE CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER PAR AS 2, 3, 4 & 5 FROM THAT JUDGEMENT AS UNDER:- '2. THE APPEAL RAISES THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUE STION OF LAW:- 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED I.T.A.T. WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.90,000/- CLAIMED AS GIF TS RECEIVED FROM 8 PARTIES EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE AFORESAID GIFTS ?' 3. THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IS STATED TO BE A COLONIZE R IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986-87, HE RETURNED THE INCOME OF RS.29,890. HE FURTHER SHOWED THE CASH CREDIT OF TH E AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.90,000 BEING SHOWN AS GIFTS. THEY WERE THE AMOUNTS SUPPOSED TO BE DONATED BY SOME EIG HT PERSONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.90,000 AND CONSEQUENT TAX LIABILITY INCREASED WOULD BE RS.53,312. THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE AS SESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL ENTERTAINED THE A PPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELLATE COMMISSI ONER TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE DONORS HAD NOT SHOWN THESE A MOUNT IN THEIR BALANCE SHEET WHICH WAS AT LEAST SEEN IN T HE CASE OF ONE OF THE DONORS AND THE PERSONS CONCERNED WERE NO T PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFOR E, HE HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. AS AGAINST THAT, THE T RIBUNAL HAD NOTED THAT THE MEMORANDUM FOR GIFT WERE FILED I N EACH OF THESE CASES AND GIFT TAX ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE SAME WARD WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS BEING ASSESSED. THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO DIF FICULTY FOR THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO KNOW FROM THE RECORD WHET HER THESE PERSONS WERE EXISTING OR NOT. BESIDES THAT A FFIDAVITS WERE ALSO FILED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNA L INTERFERED WITH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SET 7 ASIDE HIS ORDER AS WELL THAT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. IT IS A CASE WHERE PERHAPS TWO VIEWS WERE POSSIB LE AND IT IS NOTED ABOVE THAT THE TAX LIABILITY IS RS.53,312. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES HAS COME OUT WITH A C IRCULAR THAT WHERE THE TAX LIABILITY IS LESS THAN RS.5,00,0 00 SUCH MATTERS SHOULD NOT BE CARRIED IN APPEAL. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS COURT SHOULD INTERFERE. OTHERWISE ALSO, WE DO NOT FIND T HAT THIS IS A CASE INVOLVING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW WHICH OU GHT TO BE ENTERTAINED.' 20. SINCE IN THE LATEST DECISION, THE HON'BLE ALLAH ABAD HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT APPEAL INVOLVING TAX EFFECT OF LESS THAN PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT AS PER INSTRUCTIONS ISSUE D BY THE C.B.D.T. NEED NOT BE PURSUED, THIS JUDGMENET OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHABD HIGH COURT BEING LATEST IN TIME WOULD BE B INDING ON THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT THE APPEALS IN THE CASES INVOLVING TAX EFFECT LESS THAN PRESCRIBED LIMIT FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FILED BY T HE DEPARTMENT. 21. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE C.B.D.T. ARE BINDING ON SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES. IN THIS REGARD , WE REFER TO THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN ELLERMAN LINES LTD. VS. C.I.T. [1971] 82 I.T.R. 913 (S.C); U CO BANK VS. C.I.T. [1999] 237 I.T.R. 889 (S.C); C.I.T. VS. KELV INATOR OF INDIA LTD. [ 2002] 256 I.T.R. 1 (FULL BENCH DELHI); C.I .T. VS. SOUNDARARAJA FINANCE LTD. [2006] 283 I.T.R. 559 (MA D.); BHARAT CONSTRUCTION CO. VS. C.I.T. [2002] 258 I.T.R. 140 ( RAJ.); C.I.T. VS. BLAZE ADVERTISING (DELHI) PVT. LTD., [2002] 255 I.T.R. 46 (DELHI) AND HARSHENDU UPENDRE KAKA VS. I.T.O. AND OTHERS [2001] 249 I.T.R. 612 (BOM.). 22. AS A RESULT, WE DISMISS ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE BEING AGAINST LATEST EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS OF 2008 ISSUED BY THE C.B.D.T. AND BELOW MANDATORY MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRI BED THEREIN FOR FILING APPEALS. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A DECISION ON MERITS OR ON LEGAL CONTENTIONS INVOLV ED IN THESE APPEALS. 3. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO TAX EFFECT IN DEPARTMENTS APPEALS IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS, DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT HAVE FIL ED THE APPEALS. AS THE APPEALS SO FILED ARE AGAINST THE EXECUTIVE INSTRUCT IONS WHICH ARE BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENT, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS IN LIMINE. 8 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10/ 12 /2009 SD/- SD/- (D.C.AGRAWAL) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 10 / 12/2009 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD