The DCIT, 5(1), Indore V. Shri Anil Bandi, Indore

ITA 667/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 66722714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: P D NAGAR
• Keywords: Audit objection; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Tax effect
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MUKU L KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER PAN NO.AFPB4784K ITA NO. 667/IND/2013 A.Y. : 2009-10 DY. CIT , 5(1), INDORE. VS. S HRI ANIL BANDI, 4, LAD COLONY, YESHWANT NIWAS ROAD, INDORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA, SR. DR RESPONDENTS BY : SHRI P.D.NAGAR, SR. DR. PAN NO. AAECP7473M ITA NO. 670/IND/2013 A.Y. : 2009-10 DY. CIT, 5(1), INDROE. VS. M/S. PRAKASH SNACKS PVT.LTD., INDORE.. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT S BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA, SR. DR RESPONDENTS BY : SHRI S.L.SHEETAL, ADV. / // / DATE OF HEARING : 18.09.2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19. 09.2014 SHRI ANIL BANDI AND M/S.PRAKASH SNACKS, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 667 & 670/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 2 / O R D E R PER P.K.BANSAL, A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE RESP ECTIVE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). 2. IN BOTH THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS, BOTH THE RESPECTIVE LD. COUNSELS PLEADING IN EACH CASE, CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITIONS EFFECT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS BELOW PRESCR IBED LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORDS PERUS ED. BOTH THE APPEALS RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 17.6.2013 . 4. LD COUNSELS FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE RECENT INSTRUCTION NO. 5/2014 ISSUED BY CBDT ON 10. 07.2014 REVISING MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING OF APPEAL BEFOR E ITAT FIXING THE TAX EFFECT LIMIT OF RS. 4 LACS, THE SAME IS NOT MAI NTAINABLE AND LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE ONLY ISSUE NO W REMAINS BEFORE US IS, WHETHER, THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE, WHI CH IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF TAX EFFECT IN VIEW OF THE BOARD S 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 SHRI ANIL BANDI AND M/S.PRAKASH SNACKS, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 667 & 670/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 3 OR NOT. LD. SR-DR DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA-11 OF THE INSTRUCTION AND ARGUED THAT THIS WILL APPLY TO THE APPEALS FILED ON OR AFTER 10.07.2014 AND NOT TO THE APPEAL FILED PRI OR TO 10- 07.2014. HENCE, HE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE ARGUMENT OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT THIS INSTR UCTION IS PROSPECTIVE AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH T HE 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 EXPENSES HAS GONE UP, THE ASSESS EES ON THE FILE OF THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN INCREASED CONSEQUENTLY, THE BURDEN ON THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO INCREASED TO A TREMENDOUS EXTENT. THE CORRIDORS OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS ARE CHOCKED WITH HUGE PENDENCY OF C ASES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE BOARD HAS RIGHTLY T AKEN A DECISION NOT TO FILE REFERENCES IF THE TAX EFFECT L ESS THAN RS. 2 LAKHS. THE SAME POLICY FOR OLD MATTERS NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN OUR VIEW, THE BOARD S CIRCULAR DATED MARCH 27, 2000 IS VERY MUCH APPLICAB LE EVEN TO THE OLD REFERENCES WHICH ARE STILL UNDECIDE D. THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PROCEEDING WITH THE OLD REFERENCES WHEREIN THE TAX IMPACT IS MINIMAL. 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 SHRI ANIL BANDI AND M/S.PRAKASH SNACKS, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 667 & 670/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 4 CTR 492 (GUJ) HAS SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED INSTRUCTI ON NO. 3/2011 AND HELD THAT THE SAME WOULD APPLY TO PENDIN G CASES AS WELL EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A SPECIFIC COND ITION IN THAT INSTRUCTION ALSO THAT THE SAME WOULD APPLY T O APPEALS FILE ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY, 2011. HONBLE HI GH 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. 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 VS. MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) REPORTED IN (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 INVOLVED. THEREAFTER, IN 2008, CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 5 OF 2008 DATED 15TH MAY, 2008 WAS ISSUED. THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) REPORTED IN '(2010) 229 CTR (BOM) 77, INTERPRETED THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR. THE CIRCULAR WAS ISSUED IN SUPERSESSION OF ALL EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD. TH E 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. SHRI ANIL BANDI AND M/S.PRAKASH SNACKS, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 667 & 670/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 5 PARAGRAPH 11 OF THAT INSTRUCTION STIPULATED THAT IT WAS APPLICABLE TO APPEALS FILED ON OR AFTER 15TH MAY, 2008. IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT IN CASES, WHERE APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE 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 NOT PRECLUDE THE DEPARTMENT FROM CONTINUING WITH THE APPEALS AND/OR PETITIONS FILED PRIOR TO 15TH MAY, 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 WHER E 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 R S. 4 LACS NOTWITHSTANDING THE ISSUE BEING OF RECURRING NATURE. RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT IN CIT V/S POLYCOTT CORPORATION, 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 INVOLVED, EVEN THEN THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT FILE APPEAL, IF THE TAX EFFEC T IS LESS THAN RS. 4 LAKHS. IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN IF T HE QUESTION OF LAW IS OF RECURRING NATURE EVEN THEN, T HE 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 HOW THE REVENUE, ON THE FACE OF THE ABOVE CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT, CAN CONTEND THAT THE CIRCULAR DT. 15TH MAY, SHRI ANIL BANDI AND M/S.PRAKASH SNACKS, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 667 & 670/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 6 2008 ISSUED BY THE CBDT IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASES FILED AFTER 15TH MAY, 2008 AND IN COMPLIANCE THEREOF, THEY DO NOT FILE APPEALS, IF THE TAX EFFEC T 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 BEHIND THIS BELIEF ENTERTAINED BY THE REVENUE.' 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 9TH FEBRUARY, 2011, BEING INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011. THE MONETARY LIMIT HAS BEEN RAISED AGAIN AND CLAUSE 3 OF THE INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDES THA T APPEALS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY 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 CIRCUL AR INDICATES 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. CLAUSE 11, AGAIN PROVIDES THAT THE INSTRUCTIO N 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, WHEN A SIMILAR CLAUSE HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COUR T IN CIT VS. MADHUKAR INAMDAR (SUPRA), THE SAME PRINCIPLES MUST APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASES ALSO, AS SHRI ANIL BANDI AND M/S.PRAKASH SNACKS, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 667 & 670/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 7 WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF 15TH MAY, 2008 IS PARA- 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 MARCH 03, 2011, BY RELYING ON ITS EARLIER JUDGEMENT 'COMMISSIONER INCOME 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 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 DIVISI ON BENCH, WHILE 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 BEEN 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 DISMISSED, 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 VS. M/S. RANKA & 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 INSTANT CASE IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED ON THE SHRI ANIL BANDI AND M/S.PRAKASH SNACKS, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 667 & 670/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 8 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 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.' 6. WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE CASE LAW OF HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SURESHCHANDRA DURGAPRASAD KHATOD (HUF), (SUPRA) THAT IN THE SIMILAR SITUATION AND EX ACTLY IDENTICAL INSTRUCTIONS WERE APPLIED TO THE APPEALS FILED RETR OSPECTIVELY. HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS DISCUSSED THAT ALMOS T ALL HIGH COURTS ARE OF THE UNANIMOUS VIEW, CONSIDERING THE M AIN OBJECTIVE OF SUCH INSTRUCTIONS THAT TO REDUCE THE P ENDING LITIGATION, WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS CONSIDERABLE LO W OR SMALL, THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE RECENT INSTRUCTION REVISING THE MONETARY LIMIT TO RS. 4 LAKH FOR FILING APPEAL BEFO RE ITAT ON INCOME TAX MATTERS, AS ISSUED VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.5 /2014 F.NO. 279/MISC.142/2007-ITJ(PT) DATED 10 TH JULY, 2014 WILL APPLY TO PENDING APPEALS ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT T HE SAME IS EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS. THE RELE VANT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT READS AS UNDER: REFERENCE IS INVITED TO BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO 3/2 011 DATED 09/02/2011 WHEREIN MONETARY LIMITS AND OTHER CONDITIONS FOR FILING DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS (IN INCO ME-TAX SHRI ANIL BANDI AND M/S.PRAKASH SNACKS, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 667 & 670/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 9 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 COU RTS AND SUPREME COURT KEEPING IN VIEW THE MONETARY LIMITS A ND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BELOW. 3. HENCEFORTH APPEALS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES W HERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS GIVE N 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 MONETA RY LIMITS PRESCRIBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH C ASES 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 TH E TAX THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGEABLE HAD SUCH TOTAL INCO ME 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 W HERE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST ITSELF IS IN DISPUTE. IN CASE THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST IS THE ISSUE UNDER DISPUT E, THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST SHALL BE THE TAX EFFECT. IN CASE S WHERE RETURNED LOSS IS REDUCED OR ASSESSED AS INCOME, THE TAX EFFECT WOULD INCLUDE NOTIONAL TAX ON DISPUTED ADDIT IONS. IN CASE OF PENALTY ORDERS, THE TAX EFFECT WILL MEAN QU ANTUM OF PENALTY DELETED OR REDUCED IN THE ORDER TO BE APPEA LED AGAINST. SHRI ANIL BANDI AND M/S.PRAKASH SNACKS, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 667 & 670/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 10 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, CAN BE FILED IN R ESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX E FFECT 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 REFERENC E TO THE TAX EFFECT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER , IN CASE OF A COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR APPE LLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND COMMON ISSUES IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL SUCH ASSESS MENT 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 COMP OSITE ORDER / JUDGMENT INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSEE, E ACH ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY. 6. IN A CASE WHERE APPEAL BEFORE A TRIBUNAL OR A CO URT IS NOT FILED ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE TAX EFFECT BEING L ESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED ABOVE, THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX SHALL SPECIFICALLY RECORD THAT EVEN THOUGH THE DECISION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, APPEAL IS NOT BEING FIL ED ONLY ON THE CONSIDERATION THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS TH AN THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN THIS INSTRUCTION . FURTHER, IN SUCH CASES, THERE WILL BE NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE I NCOME- TAX DEPARTMENT HAS ACQUIESCED IN THE DECISION ON THE DI SPUTED ISSUES. THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT BE PREC LUDED FROM FILING AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DISPUTED ISSUES I N THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, OR IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME O R ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, IF THE TAX EFFECT EXCEEDS TH E SPECIFIED MONETARY LIMITS. SHRI ANIL BANDI AND M/S.PRAKASH SNACKS, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 667 & 670/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 11 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 T HAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS IMPLICITLY ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL OR COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A NY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR OR IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER CASE FO R 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 MON ETARY LIMIT AND, THEREFORE, NO INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN THAT T HE DECISIONS RENDERED THEREIN WERE ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THEY SHOULD IMPRESS UPON T HE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT THAT SUCH CASES DO NOT HAVE A NY 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 MAIN TAINED 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 SP ECIFIED 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 (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 B EEN 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 ALL CASES, BE SENT TO THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME-TAX (LEGAL & RESEARCH), NEW DELHI AND THE DECISION TO F ILE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION SHALL BE IN CONSULTATION WI TH THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE. SHRI ANIL BANDI AND M/S.PRAKASH SNACKS, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 667 & 670/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 12 10. THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 ABOVE S HALL NOT APPLY TO WRIT MATTERS AND DIRECT TAX MATTERS OTHER THAN INCOME TAX. FILING OF APPEALS IN OTHER DIRECT TAX M ATTERS SHALL CONTINUE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE RELEVANT PROVI SIONS OF STATUTE & RULES. FURTHER FILING OF APPEAL 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 INSTI TUTIONS UNDER SECTION 12 A OF THE IT ACT, 1961, SHALL NOT B E 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 BEFORE 10 TH JULY, 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. 5. ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD. DR COULD NOT PO INT OUT ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE CIRCUL AR AS UNDER: (A) THAT THIS IS A LOSS CASE HAVING TAX EFFECT MOR E THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT, WHICH SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCO UNT, (B) THAT THIS IS A COMPOSITE ORDER FOR MANY ASSESS MENT YEARS WHERE TAX EFFECT WILL BE MORE THAN THE PRESCR IBED LIMIT AS PER 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 OR CIRCULAR HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ILLEGAL OR ULTRA VIRES, (E) THAT REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION IN THE CASE HAS B EEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE SAME IS UNDER CHALLENGE. SHRI ANIL BANDI AND M/S.PRAKASH SNACKS, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 667 & 670/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 13 7. 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 APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN LIMINE WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (P. K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER INDORE; DATED 19/09/2014 CPU*SPS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '# ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $%$&' # # ( / CONCERNED CIT 4. # # ( ( ) / THE CIT(A), INDORE 5. +,# &' , # # &' , -.% / DR, ITAT, INDORE 6. ,/0 1 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, -# -# -# -# $2 $2 $2 $2 (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, I NDORE SHRI ANIL BANDI AND M/S.PRAKASH SNACKS, INDORE I.T.A.NOS. 667 & 670/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 14 1. DATE OF DICTATION- 18.09.2014 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19.09.2014 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S. .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 216.09.2014 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER