DCIT-7(2)(1), Bengaluru V. Sri. Vivek B Chand, Bengaluru

WTA 31/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5996 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI JT BENGALURU
• Assessee Lawyers: H ANIL KUMAR
• Keywords: Gift; Tax effect; Benefit of exemption

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER W TA NO S . 15/BANG/2017 & 31 TO 37/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(2)(1), BANGALORE. VS. SHRI VIVEK B. CHAND, NO.B-12, DEVATHA PLAZA, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 025. PAN: ABAPV 8083D APP ELL ANT RESPONDENT CO NOS. 18 TO 24/BANG/2018 [WTA NOS.15/BANG/2017 & 31 TO 38/BANG/2018] ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 SHRI VIVEK B. CHAND, BENGALURU 560 025. PAN: ABAPV 8083D VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(2)(1), BANGALORE. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT WTA NOS.16/BANG/2017 & 38 TO 4 4 /BANG/2018 ASSE SSMENT YEAR S : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(2)(1), BANGALORE. VS. SHRI RAJESH B. CHAND, NO.B-12, DEVATHA PLAZA, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 025. PAN: ABAPV 8083D APPELLANT RESPONDENT WTA NOS.15 &16/B/17 AND 31 TO 44/B/18 & CO NOS.11 TO 24/B/18 PAGE 2 OF 10 CO NOS.11 TO 17/BANG/2018 [IN WTA NOS.16/BANG/2017 & 38 TO 4 4 /BANG/2018 ] ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 SHRI RAJESH B. CHAND, BENGALURU 560 025. PAN: ABMPC 3735D VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(2)(1), BANGALORE. CROSS OBJECTOR RE SPONDENT REVENUE BY : SMT. PADMAMEENAKSHI , JT.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU. RE SPONDENT BY : SHRI H. ANIL KUMAR, CA DATE OF HEARING : 06.06 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.07.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH WTA NO.15/BANG/2017 IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2017 OF THE CWT(APPEALS)-7, BENGA LURU RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 IN RESPECT OF T HE ASSESSEE, VIZ., MR. VIVEK B. CHAND. WTA NO. 16/BANG/2017 IS ALSO AN A PPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2017 OF THE CWT(APPEA LS)-7, BENGALURU RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE, VIZ., MR. RAJESH B. CHAND. THE REVENUE H AD FILED SINGLE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSEES, THOUGH 7 DIFFERENT AS SESSMENT YEARS WERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DECISION OF THE CWT(APPEA LS). THE REGISTRY RAISED OBJECTION POINTING OUT THAT 7 SEPARATE APPEA LS SHOULD BE FILED AND FILING OF ONE SINGLE APPEAL FOR 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS NOT CORRECT. PURSUANT TO THE OBJECTION OF THE REGISTRY, THE REVE NUE HAS FILED 7 SEPARATE APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2012-13 IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES AND THESE APPEALS ARE WTA NOS.31 TO 37/BA NG/2018 IN THE CASE OF MR. VIVEK B. CHAND AND WTA NOS. 38 TO 44/BA NG/2018 IN RESPECT WTA NOS.15 &16/B/17 AND 31 TO 44/B/18 & CO NOS.11 TO 24/B/18 PAGE 3 OF 10 OF MR. RAJESH B. CHAND. IN VIEW OF THE FILING OF S EPARATE APPEALS FOR EACH AY 2006-07 TO 2012-13, BEING WTA NO.31 TO 37 /BANG/ 2018 IN THE CASE OF MR. VIVEK B. CHAND AND WTA NO.38 TO 44/BANG/2018 IN THE CASE OF MR. RAJESH B. CHAND, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN WTA NOS.15 & 16/BANG/2017 IN RESPECT OF BOTH THESE ASSESSEES ARE CONSIDERED AS SUPERFLUOUS AND DISMISSED AS SUCH. 2. CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY BOTH THE ASS ESSEES VIZ., CO NOS. 18 TO 24/BANG/2018 IN THE CASE OF MR. VIVEK B. CHAND AND CO NOS. 11 TO 17/BANG/2018 IN THE CASE OF MR. RAJESH B. CHA ND AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDERS OF CWT(A) IN RESPECT OF WHICH APPEALS H AVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE. 3. WHEN THESE APPEALS WERE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE US A CHART POINTING OUT T HAT THE TAX EFFECT IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. THE CHART F ILED IN THE CASE OF MR. VIVEK B. CHAND AND MR. RAJESH B. CHAND IS AS FOLLOW S:- SRI VIVEK B CHAND STATEMENT OF WEALTH COMPUTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER F OR A Y 2006-07 TO 2012-13 AND EXTRA WEALTH TAX LEVIED SL. NO. A.Y. GROSS WEALTH DECLARED WEALTH ADDED BY AO TOTAL BASIC EXEMPTION TAXABLE WEALTH WEALTH TAX EXTRA TAX LEVIED 1 2006 - 07 11,40,900 55,05,800 66,47,700 15,00,000 51,47,700 51,477 51,477 2 2007 - 08 11,78,900 60,03,190 71,82,090 15,00,000 56,8 2,090 56,820 56,820 3 2008 - 09 14,52,100 75,62,600 90,14,700 15,00,000 75,14,700 75,147 75,147 4 2009 - 10 18,05,000 91,82,689 1,09,87,689 15,00,000 94,87,689 94,876 91,826 5 2010 - 11 19,10,800 99,18,428 1,18,29,228 30,00,000 88,29,228 88,292 88,292 6 2011 - 12 24,49,900 1,24,16,074 1,48,65,974 30,00,000 1,18,65,974 1,18,659 1,18,659 7 2012 - 13 30,77,800 1,67,32,981 1,98,10,781 30,00,000 1,68,10,781 1,68,107 1,67,329 TOTAL TAX 6,49,550 WTA NOS.15 &16/B/17 AND 31 TO 44/B/18 & CO NOS.11 TO 24/B/18 PAGE 4 OF 10 SRI RAJESH B CHAND BANGALORE STATEMENT OF WEALTH COMPUTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER F OR A Y 2006-07 TO A Y 2012-13 AND EXTRA WEALTH TAX LEVIED SL. NO. A.Y. GROSS WEALTH DECLARED WEALTH ADDED BY AO TOTAL BASIC EXEMPTION TAXABLE WEALTH TAX 1 2006 - 07 6,87,600 29,37,821 36,25,421 15,00,000 21,25,421 21,254 2 2007 - 08 6,94,200 31 ,76,409 38,70,609 15,00,000 23,70,609 23,706 3 2008 - 09 8,59,300 34,49,974 43,09,274 15,00,000 28,09,274 28,092 4 2009 - 10 11,07,300 47,28,662 58,35,962 15,00,000 43,35,962 43,359 5 2010 - 11 11,58,400 51,06,328 62,64,728 30,00,000 32,64,728 32,647 6 2011 - 12 15,36,400 63,30,850 78,67,250 30,00,000 48,67,250 48,672 7 2012 - 13 18,41,800 85,25,934 1,03,67,734 30,00,000 73,67,734 73,677 TOTAL TAX 2,71,407 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT INSTRUCTION NO.2/2005 DATED 24.10.2005 WHEREBY THE CBDT FIXED THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL AT RS.2 LAKHS. THESE BOARDS INSTRUCTION WERE ISSUED IN PARTIAL MODIFICA TION OF INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 27.3.2000 AND INSTRUCTION NO.1985 DAT ED 29.6.2000. INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 27.3.2000 CLEARLY LAYS DO WN THAT THOSE INSTRUCTIONS FIXING THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING A PPEALS BEFORE THE VARIOUS APPELLATE FORUMS WILL APPLY TO LITIGANTS UNDER OTHE R DIRECTOR TAXES ALSO VIZ., WEALTH-TAX, GIFT-TAX, ESTATE DUTY, ETC. AS PER INS TRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 27.3.2000, THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING APPEALS BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS FIXED AT RS.1 LAKH. INSTRUCTION NO.2/2005 DATED 24. 10.2005 IN PARA 4 CLEARLY LAYS DOWN AS FOLLOWS:- 4. SUBJECT TO THE PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 ABOVE, THE IN STRUCTION NO. 1979 DATED 27.3.2000 AS CLARIFIED SUBSEQUENTLY IN I NSTRUCTION NO. 1985 DATED 29.6.2000, WILL CONTINUE TO GOVERN THE D ECISION FOR FILING OF DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS. 5. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT AS FAR AS APPEALS TO BE F ILED BY THE REVENUE UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 ARE CONCERNED, THE M ONETARY LIMITS FOR WTA NOS.15 &16/B/17 AND 31 TO 44/B/18 & CO NOS.11 TO 24/B/18 PAGE 5 OF 10 FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WILL RS.2 LAKHS AS PER INSTRUCTION NO.2 / 2005 DATED 24.10.2005. THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN FILED AFTER 24.10.2005 AND THEREFORE THE MONETARY LIMIT F OR FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY THE REVENUE HAVE TO BE SATISFIED FO R MAINTAINABILITY OF APPEALS OF THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. FROM THE CHART OF TAX EFFECT FILED BY THE ASSESSEES WHICH IS EXTRACTED IN THE EA RLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN ALL THESE APPEALS T AKEN INDIVIDUALLY IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. 6. THE LEARNED DR HOWEVER POINTED OUT THAT CBDT HAS ISSUED CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10.12.2015 IN WHICH THE CBDT HAD S UPERSEDED ALL THE EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS AND IN PARTICULAR THE MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING APPEAL AS LAID DOWN IN THE SAID CIRCULAR WILL NOT APPLY TO AP PEALS UNDER OTHER DIRECT TAX LAWS EXCEPT INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DR THERE IS NO MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING APPEALS UNDER THE W EALTH TAX ACT, 1957 IN VIEW OF THE SUPERSESSION OF THE EARLIER INSTRUCTION S ON MONETARY LIMITS LAID DOWN IN THE CIRCULARS PRIOR TO CIRCULAR NO.21/2015. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT CBDT CI RCULAR NO.21/2015 IS ONE ISSUED UNDER SEC.268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 AND THEREFORE CANNOT SUPERSEDE INSTRUCTIONS APPLICABLE TO WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957. 7. SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS INT RODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 W.R.E.F.1-4-1999 AND IT LAYS DOWN THAT THE CBDT FROM TIME TO TIME HAS THE POWER TO FIX MONETARY LIMITS F OR FILING APPEALS BY AN INCOME TAX AUTHORITY UNDER CHAPTER XX OF THAT ACT. SECTION 10 OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT,1957 EMPOWERS THE CBDT TO ISSUE INST RUCTIONS, ORDERS, DIRECTIONS TO WEALTH TAX AUTHORITIES AS IT MAY DEEM FIT FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE SAID ACT. THUS THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED UNDER TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CAN GOVERN ONLY FILING OF APPEALS UNDER THAT ACT. WTA NOS.15 &16/B/17 AND 31 TO 44/B/18 & CO NOS.11 TO 24/B/18 PAGE 6 OF 10 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 6.1.2005 AS MODIFIED BY I NSTRUCTION NO.1985 DATED 29.6.2000 AND INSTRUCTION NO. 2/2005 DATED 24 .10.2005 WOULD APPLY TO FILING OF APPEALS UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 AS THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 IS ONE ISSUED U/S.268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE CANNOT SUPERSEDE A CIRCULAR WHICH WAS APP LICABLE TO FILING OF APPEALS UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 VIZ., INSTRU CTION NO.1979 DATED 27.3.2000 AS MODIFIED BY INSTRUCTION NO.1985 DATED 29.6.2000 AND INSTRUCTION NO.2/2005 DATED 24.10.2005. THEREFORE THE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS.2 LACS FOR FILING APPEALS UNDER THE WEALTH TAX A CT, 1957 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS LAID DOWN IN INSTRUCTION NO.2/2005 DATE D 24.10.2005 WILL BE APPLICABLE FOR APPEALS FILED AFTER 24.10.2005. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AR E NOT SATISFIED AND THEREFORE THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT MAINTA INABLE AS THEY HAVE CONTRARY TO THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIONS. THE APPEALS ARE THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 9. BESIDES THE ABOVE, THE STAND OF THE DEPARTMENT I S THAT SINCE THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) IS A COMMON ORDER, THE CUMULA TIVE TAX EFFECT SHOULD BE SEEN. ON THIS ASPECT, HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT IN INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 27.3.2000, IT HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR THAT EVEN I N GROUP CASES CUMULATIVE TAX EFFECT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONS IDERATION. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE INSTRUCTION READS AS FOLLOWS:- 2. . THE NEW MONETARY LIMITS WOULD APPLY WITH REFERENCE TO EACH CASE TAKEN SINGLY. IN OTHER WORDS, IN GROUP CASES, EACH CASE SHOULD INDIVIDUALLY SATISFY THE NEW MONETARY LIMITS. THE W ORKING OUT OF MONETARY LIMITS WILL THEREFORE NOT TAKE INTO CONSID ERATION THE CUMULATIVE REVENUE EFFECT AS ENVISAGED IN BOARD'S E ARLIER INSTRUCTION REFERRED TO ABOVE. WTA NOS.15 &16/B/17 AND 31 TO 44/B/18 & CO NOS.11 TO 24/B/18 PAGE 7 OF 10 5. THESE INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY TO LITIGATION UNDE R OTHER DIRECT TAXES ALSO E.G. WEALTH-TAX, GIFT-TAX, ESTATE DUTY ETC. 10. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE CUMULATIVE TAX EFFECT SHOUL D NOT BE CONSIDERED. PARAGRAPH-5 OF CIRCULAR NO.3/2012 PRESCRIBING MONET ARY LIMITS FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE APPELLATE FORUMS HAD A CLAUSE WHICH PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF A COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND COMMON I SSUES IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS EVEN IF THE 'TAX EFFECT' IS LESS T HAN THE PRESCRIBED OF THE YEAR(S) IN WHICH THE 'TAX EFFECT' EXCEEDS THE M ONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED. 11. PARAGRAPH 5 OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.3/2012 HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT, CENTRAL CIRCULAR VS. PSI HYDRAULICS (2014) 226 TAXM AN 34 (KAR). IN THE AFORESAID DECISION, THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COUR T HELD MERELY BECAUSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSE D FOR SEVERAL YEARS TAX EFFECT SHOULD NOT BE SEEN FOR EACH AY SEPARATELY. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD THAT PARAGRAPH 5 OF CIRCULAR NO.3/2 013 WAS DISCRIMINATORY AND OFFENDED ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDI A. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FINALLY HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH THE CUMULATIVE TAX EFFECT IN A COMMON ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) FOR SEVERAL YEARS IS MORE TH AN 10 LAKHS BUT IF THE INDIVIDUAL TAX EFFECT IN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS LE SS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN CIRCULAR NO.3/2011, THE SAME SHOULD BE HELD TO BE NOT MAINTAINABLE. 12. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, WE GIVE BELOW THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE:- WTA NOS.15 &16/B/17 AND 31 TO 44/B/18 & CO NOS.11 TO 24/B/18 PAGE 8 OF 10 .PER CONTRA, SRI K.V. ARAVIND, LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE APPELLANTS REFERS TO PARA 5 OF CIRCULAR NO. 3/2011, WHICH READS THUS:- 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CALCULATE THE TAX EFFECT SEPARATELY FOR EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESP ECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THE CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE. IF, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, THE DISPUTED ISSUES ARISE IN MORE T HAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL, CAN BE FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT S PECIFIED IN PARA 3. NO APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF A SSESSMENT 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 APPELLATE 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 PRESCRIBE D OF THE YEAR(S) IN WHICH THE 'TAX EFFECT' EXCEEDS THE MONET ARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED. IN CASE WHERE A COMPOSITE ORDER/JUDGMEN T INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSEE, EACH ASSESSEE SHAL L BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY.' 17. IN CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, WHERE COMMON ORDER IS P ASSED IN RESPECT OF MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHICH INV OLVES COMMON ISSUES EVEN IF IN ONE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE THAN RS. 10 LAKHS, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT IN RESPECT OF OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH IS PART OF THE COMMON ORDER, THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS, THE REVENUE IS EN TITLED TO FILE APPEAL EVEN IN RESPECT SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS. HOWEVER, IN CASE WHERE T HERE IS NO COMMON ORDER AND AN ORDER IS PASSED ONLY IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT, YEAR AND THE TAX EFFECT THEREIN IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS, THE REVENUE CANNOT FILE THE APPEAL. 18. ON THOROUGH SCRUTINY OF PARA 5 OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 3/2011, WE FIND THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A GLARING DISCRIMI NATION OFFENDING THE SPIRIT OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUT ION. IN THE WTA NOS.15 &16/B/17 AND 31 TO 44/B/18 & CO NOS.11 TO 24/B/18 PAGE 9 OF 10 CASE OF A COMMON ORDER PASSED IN RESPECT OF ONE OR MORE ASSESSMENT YEAR/YEARS, IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS TH AN RS. 10 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF EXEMPTIO N AND THE REVENUE IS NOT DEBARRED FROM FILING AN APPEAL, EVEN THOUGH THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF ONE OR MORE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS LESS THA N RS. 10 LAKHS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE REVENUE CAN FILE AN APPEAL AGAI NST ALL THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WHICH IS A PART OF THE COMMON ORD ER, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT, WHETHER FOR ONE OF THE AS SESSMENT YEAR/YEARS, THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKH S. HOWEVER, IF IT IS A SOLITARY ORDER AND TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION AN D THE REVENUE CANNOT FILE THE APPEAL. 19. THE PARA-5 OF THE CIRCULAR IS HIGHLY DISCRIMINA TORY. AFTER ALL THE BUNCHING AND CLUBBING OF CASES AND PASSING COMM ON ORDERS IS A PROCEDURE ADOPTED FOR CONVENIENT DISPOSAL OF THE CASES BY THE COURT OR QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO SAY IN THE MATTER OF CLUBBING OF CASES AND PASSING OF COMMON O RDERS. MERELY BECAUSE THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED FOR JUDICIAL CONVENIENCE, CLUBS THE CASES AND PASS COMMON ORDER, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED OF THE BENEFIT OF CIRCULAR-3/2011 WHEN TH E TAX EFFECT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR/YEARS THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS TH AN RS. 10 LAKHS. THEREFORE, IT IS TO BE HELD THAT WHETHER IT IS A SO LITARY ORDER OR COMMON ORDER, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE TAX EFFECT LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS AND IN ALL SUCH CASES WHETHER IT IS A PART OF THE COMMON ORDER OR A SOLITARY ORDER, THE R EVENUE WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO FILE AN APPEAL. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 13. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HONBLE KA RNATAKA HIGH COURT, THE REVENUE CANNOT TAKE THE PLEA OF CONSIDERING CUM ULATIVE TAX EFFECT ALSO. 14. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE CONCLU DE THAT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS SUCH. WTA NOS.15 &16/B/17 AND 31 TO 44/B/18 & CO NOS.11 TO 24/B/18 PAGE 10 OF 10 15. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE COS AND THE COS BY THE ASSESSEES ARE ACCORDINGLY DI SMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS AS WELL AS THE C ROSS OBJECTIONS ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 06 TH DAY OF JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( A.K. GARODIA ) ( N.V. VASUDEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 06 TH JULY, 2018. / D ESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APP ELL ANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.