ITO vs. Laxmi Jewel Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
CBDT Circular on monetary limits for filing appeals applies to pending appeals
The Tribunal had to consider whether Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 which provides that the department should not file appeals before the Tribunal in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 3 lakhs would apply to pending appeals as well. HELD deciding in affirmative:
As per Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 09.02.2011 appeal before Tribunal can be filed where the tax effect exceeds the monetary limit of Rs. 3 lakhs. However, considering the similar situation where tax limits were modified by the CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2008 the jurisdictional High Court in Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) 318 ITR 149 held that the circular will be applicable to the cases pending before the court either for admission or for final disposal. In view of the order of the jurisdictional High Court we hold that Instruction No. 3 dated 09.02.2011 is applicable for the appeal preferred by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on the issue of tax effect involved.
Note: The same view in has been taken in ITO vs. India Safety Vaults Ltd (included in file). See also CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd (Delhi High Court)
Related Judgements
1.CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd (Delhi High Court) In view of Pithwa Engineering 276 ITR 519 (Bom) & Ashok Patel 317 ITR 386 (MP) followed in CIT vs. P. S. Jain & Co (included in file) where it was held that the CBDT Circular imposing limits on the filing of appeals by the department applied to pending…
2.CIT vs. M/s Varindera Construction Co (P&H High Court – Full Bench) Circular dated 15.5.2008 laying down monetary limit controls the filing of the appeals and not their hearing. Appeals filed as per applicable limit at the time of filing cannot be governed by circular applicable at the time of hearing. The object of the Circular u/s 268A is only to…
3.Soul vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) Though Instruction No. 1914 dated 2nd Dec 1993 supercedes Instruction No. 96 dated 21st August 1969, it clearly provides that demand should be stayed in "exceptional circumstances e.g., where the assessment order appears to be unreasonably high-pitched or where genuine hardship is likely to be caused to the assessee"….
CBDT Circular on monetary limits for filing appeals applies to pending appeals
The Tribunal had to consider whether Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 which provides that the department should not file appeals before the Tribunal in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 3 lakhs would apply to pending appeals as well. HELD deciding in affirmative:
As per Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 09.02.2011 appeal before Tribunal can be filed where the tax effect exceeds the monetary limit of Rs. 3 lakhs. However, considering the similar situation where tax limits were modified by the CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2008 the jurisdictional High Court in Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) 318 ITR 149 held that the circular will be applicable to the cases pending before the court either for admission or for final disposal. In view of the order of the jurisdictional High Court we hold that Instruction No. 3 dated 09.02.2011 is applicable for the appeal preferred by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on the issue of tax effect involved.
Note: The same view in has been taken in ITO vs. India Safety Vaults Ltd (included in file). See also CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd (Delhi High Court)
Related Judgements
1.CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd (Delhi High Court) In view of Pithwa Engineering 276 ITR 519 (Bom) & Ashok Patel 317 ITR 386 (MP) followed in CIT vs. P. S. Jain & Co (included in file) where it was held that the CBDT Circular imposing limits on the filing of appeals by the department applied to pending…
2.CIT vs. M/s Varindera Construction Co (P&H High Court – Full Bench) Circular dated 15.5.2008 laying down monetary limit controls the filing of the appeals and not their hearing. Appeals filed as per applicable limit at the time of filing cannot be governed by circular applicable at the time of hearing. The object of the Circular u/s 268A is only to…
3.Soul vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) Though Instruction No. 1914 dated 2nd Dec 1993 supercedes Instruction No. 96 dated 21st August 1969, it clearly provides that demand should be stayed in "exceptional circumstances e.g., where the assessment order appears to be unreasonably high-pitched or where genuine hardship is likely to be caused to the assessee"….
No comments:
Post a Comment