ITO, Ward - 3, Murshidabad, Murshidabad V. Nabikchuddin Sk., Murshidabad

ITA 340/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 34023514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MADHU MALATI GHOSH LD JCITSR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANATH BANDHU MAITRA
• Keywords: Audit objection; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Tax effect
• Section: 12; 260A

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 340/K/12-TE RS. 4 LAKH- NABIKCHUDDIN SK- J M 1 , B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH: KO LKATA ( ) , 1 , BEFORE HONBLE SRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & HONBLE SRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM $ / ITA NO. 340/KOL/2012 A.Y 2006-07 I.T.O WARD 3, MURSHIDABAD - - - VERSUS - . NABIKCHUDDIN SK PAN: BEDPS 7952F ( % / APPELLANT ) ( &'% / RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT SMT. MADHU MALATI GHOSH, LD.JCIT/SR.DR FOR THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: // SHRI ANATH BANDHU MAITRA, ADVOCATE, LD.AR * + /DATE OF HEARING: 12-08-2014 * + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:12-08-2014 / ORDER 1 , SRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), XXXVI, KOLKAT A IN APPEAL NO. 443/CIT(A)- XXXVI/KOL/WD-3, MSD/08-09/771 DATED 02/12/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. 2. SMT. MADHU MALATI GHOSH, LEARNED JCIT/SR.DR REP RESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI ANATH BANDHU MAITRA, ADVOCATE, LEARNED AR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS STATED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE ITAT. IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE DEMANDED TAX IS OF RS.4,93,149/-. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE RECENT INST RUCTION NO. 5/2014 ISSUED BY CBDT ON 10.07.2014 REVISING MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING O F APPEAL BEFORE ITAT FIXING THE TAX EFFECT LIMIT OF RS. 4 LACS, THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAI NABLE AND LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE ONLY ISSUE NOW REMAINS BEFORE US IS, WH ETHER, THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE, WHICH IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF TAX EFFECT I N VIEW OF THE BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO.5/2014 ISSUED ON 10.07.2014 REVISING THE MONETAR Y LIMITS FOR FILING OF APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE ITAT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT. LD. SR-DR DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO ITA NO. 340/K/12-TE RS. 4 LAKH- NABIKCHUDDIN SK- J M 2 PARA-11 OF THE INSTRUCTION AND ARGUED THAT THIS WIL L APPLY TO THE APPEALS FILED ON OR AFTER 10.07.2014 AND NOT TO THE APPEAL FILED PRIOR TO 10- 07.2014. HENCE, HE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE ARGUMENT OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E AND STATED THAT THIS INSTRUCTION IS PROSPECTIVE AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SEEN 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 EXPENSE S HAS GONE UP, THE ASSESSEES ON THE FILE OF THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN INCREASED CONSEQU ENTLY, THE BURDEN ON THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO INCREASED TO A TREMENDOUS EXTEN T. 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 POLICY FOR OLD MATTERS NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN OUR VIEW, THE BOARDS CIRCULAR DATED MARCH 27, 2000 IS VERY M UCH APPLICABLE EVEN TO THE OLD REFERENCES WHICH ARE STILL UNDECIDED. THE DEPARTME NT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PROCEEDING WITH THE OLD REFERENCES WHEREIN THE TAX IMPACT IS MINIMA L. THUS, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO PROCEEDS WITH DECADES OLD REFERENCES HAVING NEGLIGI BLE TAX EFFECT. SIMILARLY, HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT V. SURESHCHANDRA DURGAPRASAD KHATOD (HUF) (2012) 253 CTR 492 (GUJ) HAS SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERE D 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 AFTER FEBRUARY, 2011. H ONBLE 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. KAVEKA R DECIDED ON 29.7.2011. THE DIVISION BENCH, AFTER CONSIDERING EA RLIER INSTRUCTIONS AND VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COURTS ON INSTRUCTIONS, RELYING ON THE DECISION IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX 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 BOO K WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. SECTION 268A CARVES OUT AN EX CEPTION FOR FILING OF APPEALS AND REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 260 A OF THE ACT. THE LEGISLATURE HAS PRESCRIBED THAT THE CBDT I S EMPOWERED TO ISSUE CIRCULARS AND INSTRUCTIONS FROM TIME TO ITA NO. 340/K/12-TE RS. 4 LAKH- NABIKCHUDDIN SK- J M 3 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 O F 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) REPORTED IN '(2010) 229 CTR (BOM) 77, INTERPR ETED THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR. THE CIRCULAR WAS ISSUED IN SUPE RSESSION OF ALL EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD. THE M ONETARY LIMIT WAS INCREASED AND APPEALS WERE TO BE FILED UN DER SECTION 260A, THEREAFTER, ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFEC T EXCEEDED RS. 4 LACS. PARAGRAPH 11 OF THAT INSTRUCTION STIPUL ATED THAT IT WAS APPLICABLE TO APPEALS FILED ON OR AFTER 15TH MA Y, 2008. IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT IN CASES, WHERE APPEALS W ERE FILED BEFORE 15TH MAY, 2008, THEY WOULD BE GOVERNED BY TH E INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT WHICH WERE OPERATIVE A T THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEALS WERE FILED. THE INSTRUCTION WAS I SSUED UNDER SECTION 268A(1) OF THE ACT. THE ARGUMENT OF T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE IN THAT CASE WAS, THAT THE INSTRUCTION ISSUED ON 15TH MAY, 2008 DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DEPAR TMENT FROM CONTINUING WITH THE APPEALS AND/OR PETITIONS F ILED PRIOR TO 15TH MAY, 2008, IF THEY INVOLVED A SUBSTANTIAL Q UESTION 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 WHI CH WERE FILED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF INSTRUCTION AND WHER E SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW WERE RAISED, WERE REQUIRED TO BE D ECIDED ON MERITS. THE COURT, WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OBSE RVED THAT PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE CIRCULAR MADE IT CLEAR THAT NO A PPEALS WOULD BE FILED IN THE CASES INVOLVING TAX EFFECT LE SS THAN RS. 4 LACS NOTWITHSTANDING THE ISSUE BEING OF RECURRING N ATURE. RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT IN CIT V/S POLYCOTT CORPOR ATION, THE COURT OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: '6 THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL VERDICT MAKES IT CLEAR TH AT 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 INVOLV ED, EVEN THEN THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT FILE APPEAL, IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 4 LAKHS. IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN IF THE QUESTION OF LAW IS OF RECURRING NATURE EVEN THEN, THE REVENUE I S NOT EXPECTED TO FILE APPEALS IN SUCH CASES, IF THE TAX IMPACT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT FIXED BY THE CBDT.' ITA NO. 340/K/12-TE RS. 4 LAKH- NABIKCHUDDIN SK- J M 4 7. ONE FAILS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE REVENUE, ON THE FACE OF THE ABOVE CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT, CAN CONTEND THAT TH E CIRCULAR DT. 15TH MAY, 2008 ISSUED BY THE CBDT IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASES FILED AFTER 15TH MAY, 2008 AND IN COMPLIANCE THEREO F, 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 15TH MAY, 2008 I.E. TO THE OLD PENDING APPEALS, EVEN IF THE T AX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 4 LAKHS. IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO LOGIC BE HIND 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 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. MADHUKAR IN AMDAR (SUPRA), THE SAME PRINCIPLES MUST APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASES ALSO, 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 I NCOME TAX DELHI-III V/S M/S P.S. JAIN AND CO. DECIDED ON 2ND AUGUST, 2010 HAS HELD THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR RAISING THE MONETARY LI MIT OF THE TAX EFFECT TO RS. 10 LACS WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO PENDIN G CASES ALSO. ITA NO. 340/K/12-TE RS. 4 LAKH- NABIKCHUDDIN SK- J M 5 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 OBJE CTIVE 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. RANKA & RANKA DECIDED ON 2.11.2011, WHEREIN THE DIVISION 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 MONETARY L IMIT, 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 FROM THE ASSESSEE, ON SIMILAR ISSUE AND IF IT IS ABOVE THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED.' 5. WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE CASE LAW OF HONBLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SURESHCHANDRA DURGAPRASAD KHATOD (HUF), (SUPRA) THAT IN THE SIMILAR SITUATION AND EXACTLY IDENTICAL INSTRUCTIONS WERE APPLIED TO THE APPEALS FILED RETROSPECTIVELY. HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS DISCUSSED THAT ALMOST ALL HI GH COURTS ARE OF THE UNANIMOUS VIEW, CONSIDERING THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF SUCH INSTRU CTIONS THAT TO REDUCE THE PENDING LITIGATION, WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS CONSIDERABLE LO W OR SMALL, THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE RECENT INSTRUCTION REVISING THE M ONETARY LIMIT TO RS. 4 LAKH FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE ITAT ON INCOME TAX MATTERS, AS ISSUED VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.5/2014 FNO279/MISC.142/2007-ITJ(PT) DATED 10 TH JULY, 2014 WILL APPLY TO PENDING APPEALS ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAME IS EXACTLY IDENTI CAL TO EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS. THE RELEVANT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT READS AS UNDER: ITA NO. 340/K/12-TE RS. 4 LAKH- NABIKCHUDDIN SK- J M 6 REFERENCE IS INVITED TO BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO 3/2 011 DATED 09/02/2011 WHEREIN MONETARY LIMITS AND OTHER CONDITIONS FOR FI LING DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS (IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS) BEFORE APPELLATE TR IBUNAL, 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 BE FORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURT KEEPING IN VIEW THE M ONETARY LIMITS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BELOW. 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 U/S 260A BEFORE HIGH COURT 10,00,000/- 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 PRESCRIBED AB OVE. 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 HA VE BEEN CHARGEABLE HAD SUCH TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF INC OME 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 ITS ELF IS IN DISPUTE. IN CASE THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST IS THE ISSUE UNDER DI SPUTE, THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST SHALL BE THE TAX EFFECT. IN CASES WHERE RE TURNED LOSS IS REDUCED OR ASSESSED AS INCOME, THE TAX EFFECT WOULD INCLUDE NO TIONAL TAX ON DISPUTED ADDITIONS. IN CASE OF PENALTY ORDERS, THE TAX EFFEC T WILL MEAN QUANTUM OF PENALTY DELETED OR REDUCED IN THE ORDER TO BE APPEA LED AGAINST. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CALCULATE THE TAX EF FECT SEPARATELY FOR EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES I N THE CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE. IF, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, THE DISPU TED ISSUES ARISE IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL, CAN BE FILED IN R ESPECT 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 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 RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ITA NO. 340/K/12-TE RS. 4 LAKH- NABIKCHUDDIN SK- J M 7 HOWEVER, IN CASE OF A COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH C OURT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND COMMON ISSUES IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL SHA LL 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 DEC IDED TO FILED APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR(S) IN WHICH TAX EFFEC T EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED. IN CASE WHERE A COMPOSITE ORDER / JUDGM ENT 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 THE MONET ARY LIMIT SPECIFIED ABOVE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SHALL SPECIFICALLY R ECORD 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 CASES, THERE WILL BE NO PRESUMP TION THAT THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT HAS ACQUIESCED IN THE DEC ISION ON THE DISPUTED ISSUES. THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT BE PREC LUDED FROM FILING AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THE CASE OF T HE 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 EXCEED S 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 TRI BUNAL OR THE COURT ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS IMPLICITLY AC CEPTED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL OR COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE F OR 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 BEIN G LESS THAN THE SPECIFIED MONETARY LIMIT AND, THEREFORE, NO INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN THAT THE DECISIONS RENDERED THEREIN WERE ACCEPTABLE TO THE D EPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THEY SHOULD IMPRESS UPON THE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT THAT SUCH CASES DO NOT HAVE ANY PRECEDENT VALUE. AS THE EVIDENCE OF NOT FI LING APPEAL 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 MAN NER 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 PROVIS IONS OF AN ACT OR RULE ARE UNDER CHALLENGE, OR ITA NO. 340/K/12-TE RS. 4 LAKH- NABIKCHUDDIN SK- J M 8 (B) WHERE BOARDS 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 U NDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD, IN AL L CASES, BE SENT TO THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME-TAX (LEGAL & RESEARCH), NEW D ELHI AND THE DECISION TO FILE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION SHALL BE IN CONSULT ATION WITH THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE. 10. THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 ABOVE S HALL NOT APPLY TO WRIT MATTERS AND DIRECT TAX MATTERS OTHER THAN INCOME TA X. FILING OF APPEALS IN OTHER DIRECT TAX MATTERS SHALL CONTINUE TO BE GOVER NED BY THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF STATUTE & RULES. FURTHER FILING OF AP PEAL IN CASES OF INCOME TAX, WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS NOT QUANTIFIABLE OR NO T INVOLVED, SUCH AS THE CASE OF REGISTRATION OF TRUSTS OR INSTITUTIONS UNDER SEC TION 12 A OF THE IT ACT, 1961, SHALL NOT BE GOVERNED BY THE LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PAR 3 ABOVE AND DECISION TO FILE APPEAL IN SUCH CASES MAY BE TAKEN ON MERITS OF A PARTICULAR CASE. 11. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY TO APPEALS FILED ON OR AFTER 10 TH JULY, 2014. HOWEVER, THE CASES WHERE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BE FORE 10 TH JULY, 2014 WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJEC T, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. 12. THIS ISSUE UNDER SECTION 268A (1) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT 1961. 6. ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD. DR COULD NOT PO INT OUT ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE CIRCULAR AS UNDER: (A) THAT THIS IS A LOSS CASE HAVING TAX EFFECT MOR E THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT, WHICH SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, (B) THAT THIS IS A COMPOSITE ORDER FOR MANY ASSESSM ENT YEARS WHERE TAX EFFECT WILL BE MORE THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT AS PE R PARA 5 OF ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS, (C) THAT THIS IS A CASE, WHERE, IN THE CASE OF REVE NUE, WHERE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROVISION OF THE ACT OR I.T. RULES 1962 ARE UNDER CHALLENGE, (D) THAT BOARDS ORDER, NOTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION O R CIRCULAR HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ILLEGAL OR ULTRA VIRES, (E) THAT REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION IN THE CASE HAS BE EN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE SAME IS UNDER CHALLENGE. ITA NO. 340/K/12-TE RS. 4 LAKH- NABIKCHUDDIN SK- J M 9 THE LD. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY OF THE EXCEPTION S AS PROVIDED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS BEING A LOW TAX EFFECT CASE, WE DISMISS THE AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE IN LIMINE WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED . . + ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 /08/2014 SD/- SD/- [ 1 , ] [ , ] [ GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ] [ SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( + ) DATED :12/08/2014 ** PRADIP SPS * &2 32 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. . % / THE APPELLANT : I T O, WARD 3, MURSHIDABAD, 39 R.N TAGORE RD, P.O BERHAMPORE, DIST-MURSHIDABAD PIN 742101. 2 &'% / THE RESPONDENT- NABIKCHUDDIN SK VILL & PO BEG UNBARI, BELDANGA, MURSHIDABAD PIN 742133. 3. / THE CIT, 4. ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5 . & / DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . '2 & / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, / ASSTT REGISTRAR