ACIT LTU (2), MUMBAI V. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

MA 195/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5628 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: L
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M V RAJGURU
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL M LALA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH L , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SL NO. MA NO. ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 195/MUM/2016 2522/M/2008 - ACIT LTU - (2) CENTRE - I, 29 TH FLOOR, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, CUFFE PARADE MUMBAI 400 005 RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, 3 RD FLOOR, MAKER CHAMBERS - IV, 222 NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 21. PAN: AAACR5055K 2. 196/MUM/2016 2768/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 3. 197/MUM/2016 6873/M/2013 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 4. 198/MUM/2016 2767/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 5. 199/MUM/2016 3581/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 6. 200/MUM/2016 3580/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 7. 201/MUM/2016 6863/M/2013 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 8. 202/MUM/2016 3575/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 9. 203/MUM/2016 4588/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 10. 204/MUM/2016 4589/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 11. 205/MUM/2016 6868/M/2013 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 12. 206/MUM/2016 2528/M/2008 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 13. 207/MUM/2016 2776/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 14. 208/MUM/2016 2769/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 15. 209/MUM/2016 2777/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 16. 210/MUM/2016 2775/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 17. 211/MUM/2016 2766/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 18. 212/MUM/2016 2764/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 19. 213/MUM/2016 2763/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 2 20. 214/MUM/2016 2771/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 21. 215/MUM/2016 2773/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 22. 216/MUM/2016 6874/M/2013 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 23. 217/MUM/2016 5830/M/2009 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, 24.MUMBAI 24. 218/MUM/2016 5826/M/2009 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 25. 219/MUM/2016 2530/M/2008 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 26. 220/MUM/2016 2527/M/2008 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 27. 221/MUM/2016 5827/M/2009 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 28. 222/MUM/2016 5828/M/2009 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 29. 223/MUM/2016 4629/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 30. 224/MUM/2016 2525/M/2008 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 31. 225/MUM/2016 2765/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 32. 226/MUM/2016 1988/M/2008 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 33. 227/MUM/2016 4594/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 34. 228/MUM/2016 5831/M/2009 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 35. 229/MUM/2016 5834/M/2009 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 36. 230/MUM/2016 6871/M/2013 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 37. 231/MUM/2016 5833/M/2009 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 38. 232/MUM/2016 1983/M/2008 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 39. 233/MUM/2016 1987/M/2008 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 40. 234/MUM/2016 1985/M/2008 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 41. 235/MUM/2016 6872/M/2013 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 42. 236/MUM/2016 4592/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 43. 237/MUM/2016 4591/M/2010 - ACIT LTU - (2) RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI 3 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MV RAJGURU / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNIL M LALA / DATE OF HEARING : 20/01/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 / 04/2017 / O R D E R ALL TH E S E MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN VARIOUS APPEALS REFERRED TO IN THE ABOVE CAUSE TITLE PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 22.01.2016 DISMISSING THE REVENUES APPEAL S BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10.12.2015 HOLDING THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN ALL THESE REVENUES APPEALS IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS . 2. AT THE OUTSET, BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED IN MA NO. 223/MUM/2016 IN ITA NO.4629/MUM/2010, THE TAX EFFECT IN TH IS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS MORE THAN RS.10 LAKHS . T HEREFORE, BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMIT TED THA T THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE BE ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL BE RECALLED FOR HEARING ON MERITS . 3. COMING TO THE REST OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE THAN RS.10 LAKHS IF THE AGGREGATE OF THE TAX EFFECT IS CALCULATED PER EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR THOUGH THERE ARE SEVERAL APPEALS FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE BY APPLY ING THE CIRCULAR AND HOLDING THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. THE REVENUE IN ITS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION SUBMITS THAT PARA 9 OF CIRCULAR 21/2015 IS RELEVANT FOR THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. 4 4. LD. DR SUBMI TS THAT THE FILING OF APPEALS I N CASE OF INCOME TAX WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS NOT QUANTIFIABLE OR NOT INVOLVED IN SUCH A SITUATION, IT SHALL NOT BE GOVERNED BY THE LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 OF THE CIRCULAR AND DECISION TO FILE APPEAL IN SUCH CASES WILL BE TAKEN ON MERITS OF A PARTICULAR CASE. THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE TAX EFFECT MEANS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AND THE TAX THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGEABLE ON THE ADDITIONS IN APPEAL AND TO CALCULATE THE TAX EFFECT, FIRST OF ALL THERE SHOULD BE ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME AND IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH TAX EFFECT AS REFERRED TO IN THIS CIRCULAR WILL BE INDETERMINAB LE. THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT IN THE INSTANT CASES, THE APPEALS FALL IN THIS CATEGORY SINCE THE APPEAL S EMANATE FROM ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 195 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITS THAT B ASED ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR INDIVIDUAL TR ANSACTIONS TO GET THE CERTIFICATE FOR NIL/LOWER DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE , T HIS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IS NOT TO ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT TO DISPOSE THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 195 OF THE ACT . THEREFORE , HE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO TAX EFFECT AS IMPLIED VIDE PARAS 4 OF THE CIRCULAR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION S FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNDER : 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE APPEALS (IN CLUDING ITA NO. 2522/MUM/2008) WERE RELATED TO SECTION 195(1) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT WHEREIN ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING TO A NON - RESIDENT IS BOUND TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AT THE RATES IN FORCE. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE RELATED TO PAYMENT MADE TO DIFFER ENT NON - RESIDENT PARTIES BY RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED (ASSESSEE) AND DISPUTED ISSUE IS DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE APPEAL FOR EVERY FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS FOR OBTAINING NIL/LOW TDS CERTIFICATE U/S 195 IN RESPECT OF EACH TRANSACTION WHICH WERE DISPOSED OFF BY AO VIDE SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL ORDERS. FURTHER, THE CIRCULAR (SUPRA) IN PARA 5 STATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CALCULATE THE TAX EFFECT SEPARATELY FOR EVERY ASS ESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THE CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE. THEREFORE IF THE HON'BLE BENCH IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE 'TAX AMOUNT' AS MENTIONED IN THE INDIVIDUAL ORDER IS 'TAX EFFECT' THEN THE SAME SHOULD BE COMPUTED ASSESSMENT YEAR WISE AS ALL THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO ONE COMMON ISSUE FOR THE SAME ASSESSEE. COMPUTED IN THIS MANNER THE AGGREGATE 'TAX EFFECT' FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ABOVE THE MONETARY LIMIT 5 EVEN THOUGH THE 'TAX EFFECT' IN INDIVIDUAL APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS. 10, 00,000. 7 . FURTHER, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 IS TO REDUCE THE LARGE NUMBER OF LITIGATIONS NOT INVOLVING SUBSTANTIAL TAX IMPLICATION EVEN THOUGH THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE APPEL LATE AUTHORITIES IN THESE CASES AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PURSUE APPEALS IN SUCH CASES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ALL THE APPEALS PERTAIN TO ONE COMMON ISSUE AND INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT REVENUE IMPLICATION. 8.1 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS BEING RECOMMENDED ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HON 'BLE ITAT WAS RIGHT IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DTD. 10. 12.2015 ISSUED BY CBDT ON THE BASIS OF TAX EFFECT BEING LESS TH AN RS. 10,00,000/ - FOR EACH APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING PARA 9 OF THE CIRCULAR WHICH STATES THAT FILING OF APPEAL SHALL NOT BE GOVERNED BY THE LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 WHERE TAX EFFECT IS NOT QUANTIFIABLE OR NOT INVOLVED AND DECISION TO FILE APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN ON THE MERITS OF A PARTICULAR CASE.' 2. 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO. 1, WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HON 'BLE ITAT WAS RIGHT IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 2112015 DTD 10.1 2.2015 ISSUED BY CBDT ON THE BASIS OF TAX EFFECT BEING LESS THAN KG. 10,00,000/ - FOR EACH APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT AGGREGATE TAX EFFECT OF DIFFERENT APPEALS FILED FOR EACH FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH TAX (TDS) WAS PAID FOR SAME DISPUTED ISSUE WA S ABOVE THE MONETARY LIMITS OF RS. 10,00,000/ - .' 3. 'IF THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST AND SECOND GROUND IS IN THE NEGATIVE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE MAY BE DECIDED ON ITS MERIT.' 8 .I.1 DETAILS OF TAX PAID IN SAME FINANCIAL YEAR (APPEAL WISE) IS AS UNDER: - S.NO. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. TAX EFFECT (IN RS.) I.E. TAX DEDUCTED U/S 195(1) OF THE ACT FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH TAX WAS PAID PAYMENT MADE TO (PARTY NAME) 1. 4591/MUM/2010 2,24,340/ - 2003 - 04, 2004 - 05 LEGATO SYSTEMS NETHERLAND BV 2. 1983/MUM/2008 4,22,185/ - 2003 - 04, 2004 - 05 INNOVATIVE ROUTINES INTERNATIONAL INC. 3. 5830/MUM/2009 1,21,105/ - 2004 - 05 BARCO LTD. 4. 4594/MUM/2010 12,650/ - 2004 - 05 LEGATO SYSTEMS NETHERLANDS BV 5. 2525/MUM/2009 2,35,350/ - 2004 - 05 EDINBURG PETROLEUM SERVICES LTD. 6 6. 2522/MUM/2008 40,750/ - 2004 - 05 CONTRACT TELECOMMUNICATIO NS ENGINEERING LTD. 7. 5826/MUM/2009 49,365/ - 2004 - 05 EDINBURG PETROLEUM SERVICES LTD. 8. 2527/MUM/2008 6,24,640/ - 2004 - 05 GX TECHNOLOGY LTD. 9. 1987/MUM/2008 9,33,220/ - 2004 - 05 STRATEX NETWORKS INC. 10. 2528/MUM/2008 1,20,035/ - 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06 KAPPA ENGINEERING S.A. TOTAL 28,98,500/ - 9. THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 15.03.2016. MISC. APPLICATION NO. 195/M/2016 WAS FILED ON 21.07.2016 AND HENCE THE PRESENT REVISED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS BEING FILED IN TIME . 5. REFERRING TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE TAX EFFECT SHOULD BE COMPUTED ASSESSMENT YEAR WISE AND THE AGGREGATE TAX EFFECT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ABOVE THE MONETARY LIMIT EVEN THOUGH THE TAX EFFECT IN INDIVIDUAL APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS. THEREFORE, THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE AGGREGATE OF THE TAX EFFECT FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS MORE THAN RS.10 LAKHS, THE CIRCULAR CANNOT BE APPLIED . THEREFORE HE SUBMITS THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS PROVED TO BE MORE THAN RS.10 LAKHS IN ALL THESE APPEALS AND THEREFORE IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS BE ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE BE RECALLED FOR HEARING. 6. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN ALL THESE APPEALS, A SEPARATE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) AND IT IS NOT A CONSOLIDATE ORDER AND EACH APPEAL IS SEPARATELY FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ORDER AND IN NONE OF THESE AP PEALS OR THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS MENTIONED AND THE COLUMN AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS KEPT BLANK. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL BASED ON THE ADMISSION OF THE LD. DR THAT IN ALL THESE APPEALS THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS 7 THAN RS.10 LAKHS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE MONETARY LIMIT SHOULD BE CALCULATED QUA APPEAL AND QUA ASSESSMEN T YEAR AND ONLY IN CONSOLIDATED/COMMON ORDERS PASSED DEALING WITH SEVER AL APPEALS , IF ONE APPEAL EXCEEDS RS.10 LAKHS AND EVEN OTHER APPEALS CAN BE FILED WHERE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN 10 LAKHS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MAKING VARIOUS PROPOSITIONS AND FINALLY SUBMITS THAT THERE I S NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE HOLDING THAT THE MONETARY LIMIT IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE TRIBUNAL IS VESTED WITH POWERS TO RECTIFY MISTAKES OF LAW OR FACTS WHICH WERE OBVIOUS, PATENT AND GLARING FROM THE RECORDS AND IS NOT EMPOWERED TO REVIEW ITS OWN DECISIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE DEBATABLE ISSUES DO NOT COME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. HE PLACES RELIA NCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO VS BIR ENGG. WORKS [93 TTJ 257 ] (AMRUTSAR) CIT VS. RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO. [203 ITR 497] (BOMBAY). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE CIRCULAR SQUARELY APPLIES TO ALL THESE APPEALS AS T HE MONETARY LIMIT SHOULD BE CALCULATED QUA APPEAL, THEREFORE, HE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DISMISSING THE REVENUES APPEALS . 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE PARTIES AND ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DISMISSING THE REVENUES APPEAL HOLDING THAT IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT WHEN ALL THE SE APPEALS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 14.01 .2016, INSPITE OF THE ISSUE OF NOTICE, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE. AL L THESE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED O F F ON THE CONCESSION GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE MONETARY LIMITS IN THESE INDIVIDUAL APPEALS IS LESS THAN 8 RS.10 LAKHS. IT WAS ALSO REQUESTED BY THE LD. DR THAT IN CASE IF THE MONETARY LIMIT IS PROVED TO BE MORE THAN RS.10 LAKHS IN ANY OF THESE APPEALS , LIBERTY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE REVENUE TO FILE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FOR THE RECALL OF THE ORDER WHEREVER THE MONETARY LIMIT IS EXCEEDING RS. 10 LAKHS. WITH THE SAID CONCESSION OF THE LD. DR, WE HAVE DISPOSED O F ALL THESE APPEALS WITHOUT HEARING FURTHER FROM THE LD. DR NOR WE HAVE HEARD THE ASSESSEE ON 14.01.2016 AS NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS BENCH HAS NOT GONE INTO THE MERITS OF APPLICABILITY OF THE CIRCULAR VIS - - VIS QUA APPEAL AND QUA ASSESSMENT YEAR ETC. WHILE HOLDING THAT THE MON ETARY LIMITS IN THESE APPEALS IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. WE HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE CLAUSES OF THE CIRCULAR ESPECIALLY PARA 4, 5 AND 6 OF CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10.12.2015 , RATHER WE HAVE GONE ONLY BY THE CONCESSION OF THE LD. DR. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN NOT EXAMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CIRCULAR VIS - - VIS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. HENCE, THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE APPLYING CIR CULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10.12.2015 . THE LD. AR HAS MADE DETAILED AND EXHAUSTIVE SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CIRCULAR. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF APPLICABILITY OF CIRCULAR AT THIS STAGE SINCE WE HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE CIRCULAR WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEALS. WE ARE ALSO NOT INCLINED TO EXAMINE VARIOUS OTHER ARGUMENTS CANVASSED IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR. THE LD. AR IS AT LIBERTY TO PLACE ALL HIS ARGUMENTS ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CIRCULAR WHEN THE APPEALS ARE HEARD. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 22.01.2016 FOR EXAMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF CIRCULAR AND ALSO TO DECIDE THE ISSUES ON MERITS IN ALL THESE APPEALS BY HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ALL THE MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE ALLOWED INCLUDING MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.223/2016 IN ITA 9 NO.4629/MUM/2010, WHERE ADMITTEDLY THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE THAN RS.10 LAKHS. ALL THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS. MENTIONED IN THE CAUSE TITLE ARE RECALLED. ORDER PRONO UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 17 TH DAY OF APRIL 2017 . SD/ - SD/ - (ASHWANI TANEJA) ( C.N.PRASAD ) / / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER / MUMBAI; / DATED 17/ 0 4 / 2017 LR, SPS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUM 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY / /