C I T JAIPUR vs. MANISH KR TAMBI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/310/2008HC RajasthanRJHC02038525200830 March 20163 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac (the prescribed limit for High Court appeals), deserved to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals were left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The court also observed that if any appeal fell under the exceptions mentioned in the circular (e.g., constitutional validity challenges, adverse rulings on Board orders, etc.), the Revenue would be at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as not pressed in accordance with the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dealt with multiple appeals and references, all of which had a tax effect of less than Rs. 20 lac. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued Circular No. 21/2015 on December 10, 2015, under Section 268A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to regularize monetary limits for filing appeals. This circular superseded previous instructions and aimed to reduce litigation. The circular stipulated monetary limits for appeals before the Appellate Tribunal (Rs. 10,00,000), High Courts (Rs. 20,00,000), and the Supreme Court (Rs. 25,00,000). It also provided exceptions where appeals should be contested on merits regardless of tax effect, such as challenges to constitutional validity or adverse rulings on Board orders. The circular was to apply retrospectively to pending appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue before the High Court are maintainable given that the tax effect is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000 for High Court appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee's side regarding the maintainability of the appeals based on the circular. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's primary contention, implied by the context of the circular and the court's decision, would be that the appeals should be considered on their merits, or that the circular's application should be interpreted in their favor. However, the judgment does not explicitly detail the Revenue's arguments for pursuing these appeals despite the low tax effect, beyond the general context of the circular's exceptions and retrospective application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A(1),Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- 1. D.B.Income Tax Reference No.48/1984. 2. D.B.Income Tax Reference No.31/1987. 3. D.B.Income Tax Reference No.90/1987. 4. D.B.Income Tax Reference No.8/1990. 5. D.B.Income Tax Reference No.65/1995. 6. D.B.Income Tax Reference No.14/1996. 7. D.B.Income Tax Reference No.20/1998. 8. D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.17/2004. 9. D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.18/2004. 10. D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.41/2004. 11. D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.376/2005. 12. D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.310/2008. 13. D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.734/2008. 14. D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.260/2009. 15. D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.298/2009. 16. D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.447/2009. 17. D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.128/2010. 30.03.2016. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Mr.R.B.Mathur ] Mr.Anuroop Singhi ] Mrs.Parinitoo Jain ] Mr.Sameer Jain ] Counsel for appellants. Mr.Anil Mehta ] Mr.Anant Kasliwal ] Mr.P.K.Kasliwal ] Mr.R.K.Yadav ] Counsel for respondents. Mr.K.Yadav ] Mr.N.L.Agarwal ] Ms.A.Parashar ] Mr.Ajay Gupta ] Mr.N.L.Agarwal ] Mr.Naresh Gupta ] ***** Instant appeals are directed against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and indisputably the tax effect as brought to our notice, is less than Rs.20 lac. A Circular No.21/2015 has been issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 10.12.2015 in exercise of its power u/sec. 268A (1) of the Income-tax Act 1961 in supersession of the Boards instruction No.5/2014 dt.10.7.2014 regularising the monetary limits for filing the appeals by the Revenue before the Tribunal, High Courts and Apex Court with an object for reducing litigation.

-2- Relevant para nos.3, 8, 9 and 10 reads ad infra :- “3. Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder :- S. No. Appeals in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs.) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 2 Before High Court 20,00,000/- 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 monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case. 4. xxx xxx xxx 5. xxx xxx xxx 6. xxx xxx xxx 7. xxx xxx xxx 8. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect: (a) Where the Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule are under challenge, or (b) Where Board's order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or (c) Where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, or (d) Where the addition relates to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts. 9. The monetary limits specified in para 3 above shall not apply to writ matters and direct tax matters other than Income tax. Filing of appeals in other Direct tax matters shall continue to be governed by relevant provisions of statute & rules. Further, filing of appeal in cases of Income Tax, where the tax effect is not quantifiable or not involved, such as the case of registration of trusts or institutions under section 12 A of the IT Act, 1961, shall not be governed by the limits specified in para 3 above and decision to file appeal in such cases may be taken on merits of a particular case. 10. This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.” The extract of the paragraphs referred to supra, clearly indicates that the limits specified in para 3 may not apply to certain exceptions specified in para 8, at the same time para nos.9 and 10 of the Circular if read conjointly, clearly envisages that the present instructions will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals, subject to exceptions where the tax effect even if is less than Rs.20 lac, can be preferred in High Courts.

-3- Taking note of the CBDT Circular dt. 10/12/2015 and the tax effect which indisputably in the instant case is less than Rs.20 lac, much less than what has been prescribed for filing appeal before the High Courts, deserves to be dismissed as not pressed. However, it is made clear that the substantial questions of law raised in the instant appeals, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding, if arises in future. At the same time we consider it appropriate to observe that if the appeal falls in any of the exceptions as referred to in the Circular dt. 10/12/2015, the Revenue will be at liberty to move an application for recalling of the order if so advised. Accordingly, in the light of the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 the appeals stand dismissed as not pressed. Let a copy of this order be placed in each file separately. (PRAKASH GUPTA),J.

(AJAY RASTOGI),J. All corrections made in judgment/order have been All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Solanki DS, P.S. Solanki DS, P.S.

More judgments on Section 268A(1)

All 190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →