ITO, Bangalore V. M/s Crown Securities Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

MA 7/BANG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8547 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSAN THOMAS JOSE JT
• Assessee Lawyers: T V S BHAT
• Keywords: Audit objection; Question of law; Assessment record; Tax effect
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO.07/BANG/2012 (IN ITA NO.94/BANG/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(1), BANGALORE. VS. M/S. CROWN SECURITIES PVT. LTD., NO.43, GROUND FLOOR, 1 ST CROSS, VINAYAK NAGAR, BELLARY MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560 024. PAN: AABCC 1581G APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SMT. SUSAN THOMAS JOSE, JT.CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.V.S. BHAT, C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 15.06.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.06.2012 O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 17.10.2011 IN ITA NO.94/BANG/2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2007 -08 HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN THIS M.P., THE DEPART MENT HAS CONTENDED AS UNDER:- M.P. NO.7 /BANG/12 PAGE 2 OF 10 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE APPEAL STATING THAT THE PAPERS FILED IN THE SHAPE OF AUDITORS REPORT AND COPY OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND ALSO POST ASSESSMENT RECORDS SHOW NO DISTURBANCE OF ACCOUNTS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADVERSE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT IN ITA NO.94/BANG/2011. THE HONBLE ITAT HAS NOT ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX AND INTEREST IS L ESS THAN THE MINIMUM MONETARY LIMIT STIPULATED BY THE BOARD FOR APPEAL BEFORE IT. THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT ON 02.02.2011 AND THE TAX EFFECT IS RS.2,15,810/- WHIC H IS ABOVE THE MINIMUM PRESCRIBED LIMIT AS PER INSTRUCTI ON NO.5/2008 WHICH WAS IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPEAL. THE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN ITS ORDER IN PARA 9 AT PAGE 4 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HONBLE IT AT MAY SUITABLY AMEND ITS ORDER AS THE INSTRUCTION NO.5/2008 WAS STILL IN EXISTENCE. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR REITERA TED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE AFORESAID M.A. DATED 17.02. 2012 AND REQUESTED TO RECALL THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2011. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO REITERATED THE SAME DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE SAID SUBMISSIONS READ AS UNDER:- 1. THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE REVENUE TO AMEND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA/94/B/2011 DATED 17/10/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS THE MONETARY LIMIT NOT TO PREFER TH E APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS RS. 2 LAKHS ON 02/02/2 011. M.P. NO.7 /BANG/12 PAGE 3 OF 10 2. THE TOTAL TAX EFFECT WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS APPEAL IS RS. 2,15,280/-. 3. THAT IN VIEW OF INSTRUCTION NO. 3/2011 ISSUED O N 09.02.2011 REVENUE IS PRECLUDED FROM FILING THE APP EAL WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED RS. 3,00,000/- BEFORE THE HONBLE INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AS THE SUBJECT MATT ER I.E. THE TAX EFFECT IS RS. 2,15,280/- WHICH IS LESS THAN 3,00,000/-, THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED U/S 2 54(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON THIS GROUND. 4. THAT IN HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN CIT VS. SEEDI BUILDERS REPORTED AS (2012) 204 TAXMAN 13 6 (KAR), THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD INSTRUCTION NO. 3/ 2011 ISSUED ON 09.02.2011 IS APPLICABLE TO PENDING PROCE EDING ALSO. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON FOLLOWING JUDGMENT S IN THIS REGARD: THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) (2009) 318 ITR 149 (COPY ATTACHED). WE THEREFORE PLEAD BEFORE THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL O N BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA/94/B/2011 DATED 17/10/20 11 IS WELL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND DOES NOT N EED ANY AMENDMENT AS PLEADED BY THE APPELLANT. FOR THE ABOVE REASON WE APPEAL THAT THE MP IN QUEST ION MAY BE REJECTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON TH E RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THIS FACT THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS Q 2,15,280 (AS REPORTED BY THE LD. DR). IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE CBDT IN ITS INSTRUCTION NO.3/11 DATED 09.02.2011 IN PARA 3 HAD STATED AS UN DER:- M.P. NO.7 /BANG/12 PAGE 4 OF 10 S.NO. APPEALS IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS.) 1. APPEAL BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 3,00,000 2. APPEAL U/S. 260A BEFORE HIGH COURT 10,00,000 3. APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT 25,00,000 5. FROM THE ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT, IT IS C LEAR THAT THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT BY THE DEPARTMENT IS Q 3 LAKHS. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTION NO.3/11 ISSUED BY THE CBDT IS APPLICABLE FOR THE CASES WHEREIN THE APPEAL HAS BEE N FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THOSE INSTRUCTI ONS. IN THIS REGARD, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT V. MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) (318 ITR 149)(BOM) HELD AS UNDER:- THE CIRCULAR DATED MAY 15, 2008 IN GENERAL AND PARAGRAPH (5) THEREOF IN PARTICULAR LAY DOWN THAT E VEN IF THE SAME ISSUE IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ASSESSEE, FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS IS INVOLVED, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT FILE APPEAL, IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.4 LA KHS. IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN IF THE QUESTION OF LAW IS OF RECU RRING NATURE, THE REVENUE IS NOT EXPECTED TO FILE APPEALS IN SUCH CASES, IF THE TAX IMPACT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT FIXED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. THE BOA RD HAS ALSO ISSUED A CIRCULAR ON JUNE 5, 2007, DIRECTI NG THE DEPARTMENT TO EXAMINE ALL APPEALS PENDING BEFORE TH E COURT ON A CASE TO CASE BASIS WITH FURTHER DIRECTION TO WITHDRAW CASES WHEREIN THE CRITERIA OF MONETARY LIM IT AS PER THE PREVAILING INSTRUCTION ARE NOT SATISFIED, U NLESS THE QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED OR RAISED IN APPEAL OR REF ERRED TO THE HIGH COURT FOR OPINION IS OF A RECURRING NAT URE REQUIRED TO BE SETTLED BY THE HIGHER COURT. THIS C IRCULAR MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ON THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE CIRCULAR, PREVAILING INSTRUCTIONS FIXING MONETARY L IMIT WILL HOLD GOOD EVEN FOR PENDING CASES. THE CIRCULA R DATED MAY 15, 2008 WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO PENDING CASES REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT TO WITHDRAW CASES WHEREIN THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED M.P. NO.7 /BANG/12 PAGE 5 OF 10 MONETARY LIMITS. THE CIRCULAR DATED MAY 15, 2008, WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO CASES PENDING BEFORE THE COU RT EITHER FOR ADMISSION OR FOR FINAL DISPOSAL AND IT I S BINDING ON THE REVENUE. 6. FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASE, IT I S CLEAR THAT CIRCULARS OF THE CBDT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO CASES PENDING FOR FINAL DISPOSAL AND IT IS BINDING ON THE REVENUE. 7. SIMILARLY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT V. DELHI RACE CLUB LTD. IN ITA NO.128/2008, ORDER DATE D 03.03.2011 BY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER DATED 02.08.2010 IN ITA NO.179/1991 IN THE CASE OF CIT DELHI-III V. M/S. P.S. JAIN & CO. HELD THAT SUCH CIRCULAR WOULD ALSO BE APPLICABLE TO PENDING CASES. 8. RECENTLY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N CIT V. RANKA & RANKA IN ITA NO.3191/2005 HAS TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW VIDE ORDER DATED 02.11.2011. THEIR LORDSHIPS OBSERVED I N PARAS 24 TO 30 AS UNDER:- 24. THE NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY EXPRESSLY STATED TH AT THE GOVERNMENT MUST CEASE TO BE A COMPULSIVE LITIGANT. THE PHILOSOPHY, THAT THE MATTERS SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE COURTS FOR ULTIMATE DECISION IS TO BE DISCARDED AND THE EASY A PPROACH THAT 'LET THE COURT DECIDE', MUST BE ESCHEWED AND CONDEMNED. THE REVENUE HAS NOT APPLIED ITS MIND IN THIS DIRECTION. NO ATTEMPT IS MADE TO REDUCE THE PENDENC Y OF THE LITIGATION BY FILTERING FRIVOLOUS AND VEXATIOUS MAT TERS FROM MERITORIOUS ONES AND SAID CASES ARE WITHDRAWN. THE ONLY MEASURE TAKEN FOR REDUCING THE LITIGATION IS, BY RA ISING THE MONETARY LIMIT. HOWEVER, AS THE SAME IS MADE PROSPE CTIVE, IT HAD NO APPLICATION TO THE PENDING CASES. THEREFORE, THE SAID INSTRUCTION NO. 3/11 DO NOT FULFIL THE REQUIREMENT PRESCRIBED BY THE NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY. IT ONLY PARTIALL Y SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT IN RESPECT OF FUTURE LITIGATION. UN DER THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTION, THE CRUCIAL DATE IS THE DATE OF FILING OF THE APPEAL. IT IS THAT DATE WHEN THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED, THE REVENUE IS PRECLUDED FROM M.P. NO.7 /BANG/12 PAGE 6 OF 10 FILING SUCH APPEALS. THOUGH THE DATE OF FILING OF T HE APPEAL MAY BE THE CRITERIA, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT PROVI DE A RATIONALE SUFFICIENT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PENDING CASES AND CASES TO BE FILED IN FUTURE. THE EARLIER MONETARY L IMIT WAS FIXED IN THE YEAR 2005. SO IT IS AFTER SIX YEARS, T HE MONETARY LIMIT IS ENHANCED. IF ONLY THE INSTRUCTION NO. 3/11 HAD BEEN MADE APPLICABLE TO THE PENDING CASES ALSO, AS LAID DOWN IN THE NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY, THE OBJECT OF THE P OLICY WOULD HAVE BEEN FULFILLED. ONE OF THE WAYS OF GIVING EFFE CT TO THE SAID POLICY IS TO MAKE THAT INSTRUCTION APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY TO ALL PENDING APPEALS AS ON THE DA TE OF THE CIRCULAR. IT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY SERVE THE OBJECT O F THE POLICY. 25. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT, THE QUESTION ARISES, WHEN T HE INSTRUCTION EXPRESSLY STATES THAT BENEFIT OF THE SA ID POLICY IS PROSPECTIVE, STILL CAN THE COURTS PLACE A CONSTRUCT ION ON SUCH INSTRUCTION SO AS TO MAKE IT RETROSPECTIVE. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CCE V. MYSORE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., [2006] 204 ELT 517 (SC) DEALING WITH THE QUESTION HOW A BENEFICIAL CIRCULAR IS TO BE CONSTRU ED, HAS APPROACHED THIS QUESTION IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. A T PARAGRAPH 13 OF THE JUDGMENT, IT IS STATED THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIRCULAR BEING O PPRESSIVE AND AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, HAS TO APPLY ONLY PROSP ECTIVELY AND CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY. IN OTHER WOR DS, A BENEFICIAL CIRCULAR HAS TO BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY . THUS, WHEN THE CIRCULAR IS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO CLAIM THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE SAME PROSPECTIVELY. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, TRADE NO TICES HAD BEEN ISSUED CLASSIFYING THE CIRCUIT BREAKERS UNDER HEADING NO. 85.35 OR 85.36. WHEN THE APPROVED CLASSIFICATIO N WAS PROPOSED TO BE REVISED TO RECLASSIFY THE SINGLE PAN EL CIRCUIT BREAKERS UNDER HEADING NO. 85.37 OF THE TARIFF, SUC H RE- CLASSIFICATION CAN TAKE EFFECT ONLY PROSPECTIVELY F ROM THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE PROP OSING RE-CLASSIFICATION. 26. FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT, THE APEX COURT IN THE CAS E OF SUCHITRA COMPONENTS LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF CNETRAL EXCISE, GUNTUR [2007] 208 ELT 321 (SC), HELD AS UNDER: THE POINT RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT IS COVERED BY THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.4488 OF 2005, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE. BANGALORE V. M/S. MYSORE ELECTRICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , REPORTED IN 2006 M.P. NO.7 /BANG/12 PAGE 7 OF 10 (204) E.L.T. 517 (S.C.). IN THE SAID JUDGMENT, THIS COURT HELD THAT A BENEFICIAL CIRCULAR HAS TO BE APP LIED RETROSPECTIVELY WHILE OPPRESSIVE CIRCULAR HAS TO BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY. THUS, WHEN THE CIRCULAR IS AGAINST, THE ASSESSEE, THEY HAVE RIGHT TO CLAIM ENFORCEMENT OF THE SAME PROSPECTIVELY'. 27. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE INSTRUCTION NO. 3/11 IS MORE BENEFICIAL THAN INSTRUCTION NO. 2/05. IF INSTRUCTIO N NO.3/11 IS ALSO MADE APPLICABLE TO THE PENDING APPEALS BEFORE THIS COURT, IT WOULD GRANT RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, IF NUMBER OF APPEA LS PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT ARE DISPOSED OF ON THE BASIS OF T HE SAID CIRCULAR, THE PRECIOUS TIME WHICH WOULD BE SAVED BY THIS COURT COULD BE BETTER UTILIZED FOR DECIDING DISPUTE S WHERE TAX EFFECT IS ENORMOUS. THAT APART, THE DURATION, A N APPEAL TAKES IN THIS COURT WOULD BE REDUCED AS DESIRED BY THE NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY. 28. IT IS ALSO NOT OUT OF CONTEXT TO MENTION THAT PER IODICALLY, THE REVENUE INTRODUCES WHAT IS CALLED AS KARVIVADH SAMADHAN SCHEME AND VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF INCOME SCHEME TO ANNUL BLACK MONEY AND TO GIVE BENEFIT TO PERSONS WHO ARE NOT PROMPT IN FILING RETURNS AND PAYING TAX . BUT UNFORTUNATELY, PERSONS WHO ARE PAYING TAX REGULARLY BUT HAVE SUCCEEDED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN SHOWING THAT THERE IS NO TAX LIABILITY, ARE MADE TO FACE THESE LITIGATIONS, INST EAD OF CONCENTRATING THEIR TIME AND ENERGY IN PRODUCTIVE W ORK. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT ANY NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER THIS FISCAL LEGISLATION GRANTING EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF TAX HAS TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY. ANY CIRCULARS/INSTRUCTIONS ISSU ED CONFERRING BENEFIT ON THE ASSESSEES WHO ARE STILL T O COME TO COURT AND WHO ALREADY INSIDE THE COURT, AT ANY RATE , IF SUCH A BENEFIT IS GIVEN TO PENDING MATTERS, IT WOULD BE ON LY IN THE NATURE OF ONE TIME SETTLEMENT, WHICH MOST OF THE FI NANCIAL INSTITUTIONS THROUGH OUT THE COUNTRY EXTEND TO DEFA ULTERS WHO HAVE BORROWED MONEY AND WHO REFUSES TO PAY THE SAME . 29. IT IS ALSO NOT OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION-HEREIN THA T THE PARLIAMENT WANTED TO GRANT STATUTORY RECOGNITION TO THESE ORDERS/INSTRUCTIONS/CIRCULARS, ISSUED BY THE DEPART MENT FROM TIME TO TIME RETROSPECTIVELY TO TAKE CARE TO P ROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BY INTRODUCING SUB-SECTION (2) AND (3) IN SECTION 268-A OF THE ACT. THIS BENEFIT CONFE RRED ON THESE ASSESSEES WOULD BE ONLY IN THE NATURE OF ONE TIME SETTLEMENT BECAUSE IF THE SAME ISSUE ARISES FOR CON SIDERATION M.P. NO.7 /BANG/12 PAGE 8 OF 10 IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE THAN RS. 10 LAKHS, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THEM TO PLEAD THAT EITHER THE DEPARTMENT IS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING SUCH AMOUNT OR THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT DISMISSING THE APPEA LS ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX EFFECT BEING WITHIN THE MONETAR Y LIMIT WOULD COME IN THE WAY OF THE DEPARTMENT PROCEEDING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE CIRCULAR ALSO MAKES IT CL EAR THAT IN THE PENDING APPEALS, WHERE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR RULE ARE UNDER CHALLENGE, OR WHERE BOARD'S ORDER, NOTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION OR CIRCULA R HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ILLEGAL OR ULTRA VIRES OR WHETHER REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION IN THE CASE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPA RTMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS LES S THEN THE MONETARY LIMIT FIXED UNDER THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR, STILL IT IS OPEN TO THE DEPARTMENT TO REQUEST THE COURT TO PERM IT THEM TO PROSECUTE SUCH APPEALS. THUS, THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO APPLY ITS MIND IN ALL THE PENDING APPEALS AND POINT OUT T O THE COURT, WHICH ARE THOSE APPEALS IN WHICH THEY INTEND TO PROSECUTE. THEREFORE SUFFICIENT SAFEGUARDS HAVE BEE N MADE TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC REVENUE. BY T HIS APPROACH WE WOULD BE SAVING THE TIME OF THE COURT, THE TIME OF THE DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC TIME IN GENERAL AND GIVING EF FECT TO THE NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY, 2011, SO THAT IT CA N BE USED FOR BETTER AND PRODUCTIVE PURPOSE. 30. IT IS OUR EXPERIENCE THAT IN MOST OF THE CASES, T HE LEVY OF TAX IS MADE BY PLACING SUCH INTERPRETATION ON THE P ROVISION OF THE ACT, SO AS TO DEFEAT THE VERY OBJECT OF THOS E PROVISIONS. THE PARLIAMENT WITH THE BEST OF INTENTI ON, AS INCENTIVE TO TRADE AND INDUSTRY, HAS EXTENDED SEVER AL BENEFITS UNDER THE ACT. WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE CO NTEXT AND THE OBJECT WITH WHICH THOSE PROVISIONS ARE ENACTED, THE DEPARTMENT HAS INTERPRETED THOSE PROVISIONS PREVENT ING THOSE BENEFITS REACHING THE PERSONS TO WHOM IT WAS INTEND ED. IN MOST OF THE CASES, THE TRIBUNAL HAS COME TO THE RES CUE OF THOSE ASSESSEE, HAS INTERPRETED THOSE PROVISIONS IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND HAVE EXTENDED THE BENEFIT TO THE AS SESSEE. IT IS AGAINST THOSE ORDERS, MOST OF THE APPEALS ARE FI LED MECHANICALLY AS COMPULSIVE LITIGATION WITHOUT ANY S ENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS OUR EXPERIENCE THAT MOST OF T HE APPEALS WHICH ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE FRIVOLOUS AND VE XATIOUS. THE MAJORITY OF THE APPEALS ARE FILED WITH THE SOLE OBJECT OF LEAVING IT TO THE COURTS FOR ULTIMATE DECISION. THE APPROACH IS, 'LET THE COURT DECIDE'. THE AUTHORITY WHO DECID ES TO PREFER THE APPEAL IS NOT PREPARED TO TAKE THE RESPONSIBILI TY. THERE IS AN ATTEMPT TO SAVE THEIR SKIN, SO THAT TOMORROW THE Y ARE NOT M.P. NO.7 /BANG/12 PAGE 9 OF 10 HELD RESPONSIBLE IN ANY MANNER. IT IS THIS APPROACH , WHICH IS TO BE ESCHEWED AND .CONDEMNED, AS STATED IN THE NAT IONAL LITIGATION POLICY. IT IS YET ANOTHER GROUND FOR US TO MAKE THIS CIRCULAR APPLICABLE TO THE PENDING PROCEEDINGS . (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED). 9. FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED IN THE CIRCULARS BY CBDT ARE APPLICABLE FOR PENDING CASES ALSO. THEREF ORE, BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE AFORESAI D REFERRED TO CASES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT INSTRUCTI ON NO.3/11 DATED 09.02.2011 ISSUED BY THE CBDT ARE APPLICABLE FOR TH E PENDING CASES ALSO, IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT S EE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DATED 17.10.2011. THE ONLY A MENDMENT REQUIRED IN THAT ORDER IS THAT THE MONETARY LIMIT M ENTIONED IN PARA 9 IS TO BE READ AS LESS THAN RS.3 LAKHS INSTEAD OF LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. (PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012). SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) ( N.K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 15 TH JUNE , 2012. DS/- M.P. NO.7 /BANG/12 PAGE 10 OF 10 COPY TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.