Comissioner Of Income Tax,Jabalpur vs. Reena Mongia

PDF · subscribers
MAIT/91/2004HC Madhya Pradesh30 April 2014Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON9 pages
For Petitioner: B.S.Thakur,Sanjeev Tuli,Ajit AdeFor Respondent: Ll.Sharma,Vijay Gupta,Manish Sharma,
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax are not maintainable. The Court referred to CBDT Circular No. 1979 dated 27.3.2000, which clearly states that appeals should only be filed where the tax effect exceeds Rs. 2 Lakhs. This circular is binding on all authorities under the Board, including the appellant Commissioner. The Court noted that this instruction was a continuation of earlier directions, with the monetary limit previously being Rs. 50,000/-. The Court also relied on previous judgments of a Coordinate Bench, specifically in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ramkishore Nandkishore (decided on 12.2.2013), which had considered similar circulars and judgments from other Division Benches of the same High Court (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suresh Chand Goyal and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel and Company). The reasoning was that the appeals were filed after the issuance of the circular, and the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, rendering them incompetent. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as incompetent.

What were the facts?

This judgment consolidates numerous appeals (MAIT Nos. 91/2004 to 132/2004, 57/2005, 106/2004, 110/2004, 111/2004, 112/2004, 113/2004, 115/2004, 116/2004, 117/2004, 120/2004, 121/2004, 124/2004, 125/2004, 126/2004, 127/2004, 128/2004, 130/2004) filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against various assessees, including Smt. Reena Mongia, Praveen Kumar Mongia, Yogendra Pal Mongia, Smt. Krishna Devi Mongia, Smt. Kanchan Devi Mongia, Mahendra Pal Mongia, Govind Ram Mongia, Smt. Neelam Devi Mongia, Jitendra Pal Mongia, and Swapnil Mongia. The appeals challenge orders passed by appellate authorities. The core of the dispute revolves around the maintainability of these appeals by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable when the tax effect for each assessment year is less than Rs. 2 Lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 1979 dated 27.3.2000? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee argues that the appeals are not maintainable because the tax liability for each year, as stated in the memo of appeal, is below the monetary limit of Rs. 2 Lacs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 1979. They rely on the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) which prohibit filing appeals where the quantum of tax is less than Rs. 2 Lacs. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the Revenue regarding the maintainability of the appeals based on the tax effect. The Revenue is the appellant, and their action of filing the appeals is what is being challenged on the grounds raised by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 256(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR MAIT NO. 91/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SMT. REENA MONGIA MAIT NO. 104/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus PRAVIN KUMAR MONGIA MAIT NO. 88/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus YOGENDRA PAL MONGIA MAIT NO. 99/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus PRAVIN KUMAR MONGIA MAIT NO. 118/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SMT. KRISHNA DEVI MONGIA MAIT NO. 132/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SMT. KANCHAN DEVI MONGIA 2 MAIT NO. 89/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus MAHENDRA PAL MONGIA MAIT NO. 90/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus GOVIND RAM MONGIA MAIT NO. 93/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus MAHENDRA PAL MONGIA MAIT NO. 94/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus MAHENDRA PAL MONGIA MAIT NO. 95/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus GOVIND RAM MONGIA MAIT NO. 96/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus PRAVEEN KUMAR MONGIA. MAIT NO. 97/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 Versus SMT. REENA MONGIA MAIT NO. 98/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus PRAVIN KUMAR MONGIA. MAIT NO. 100/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus GOVIND RAM MONGIA MAIT NO. 101/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus MAHENDRA PAL MONGIA MAIT NO. 102/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus PRAVIN KUMAR MONGIA MAIT NO. 103/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus GOVIND RAM MONGIA MAIT NO. 105/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus KRISHNA DEVI MONGIA 4 MAIT NO. 107/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus KRISHNA DEVI MONGIA MAIT NO. 108/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SMT. REENA MONGIA MAIT NO. 111/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SMT. NEELAM DEVI MONGIA MAIT NO. 112/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SMT. KANCHAN DEVI MONGIA MAIT NO. 113/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SMT. NEELAM DEVI MONGIA MAIT NO. 115/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus 5 SMT. KRISHNA DEVI MONGIA MAIT NO. 116/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SMT. KRISHNA DEVI MONGIA MAIT NO. 117/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SMT. NEELAM DEVI MONGIA MAIT NO. 120/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus JITENDRA PAL MONGIA MAIT NO. 121/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SMT. NEELAM DEVI MONGIA MAIT NO. 124/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SMT. KANCHAN DEVI MONGIA MAIT NO. 125/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 Versus SMT. KANCHAN DEVI MONGIA MAIT NO. 126/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SMT. KANCHAN DEVI MONGIA MAIT NO. 127/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus GOVIND RAM MONGIA MAIT NO. 128/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus YOGENDRA PAL MONGIA MAIT NO. 130/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus YOGENDRA PAL MONGIA MAIT NO. 110/2004 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SWAPNIL MONGIA MAIT NO. 106/2004 7 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SWAPNIL MONGIA MAIT NO. 57/2005 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus H.E.G. LTD. MANDIDEEP, BHOPAL Present : Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon, J & Hon'ble Mrs. Vimla Jain, J.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In all the cases: Shri Sanjay Lal, Shri Shushrut Dharmadhikari, Shri Sanjeev Tuli, and Shri B. S. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri L. L. Sharma, Shri Yogesh Sharma, and Shri Pratul Shandilya learned counsel for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.

O R D E R 30/4/2014 Per : Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Menon, J. As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, all these appeals are being decided by this common order. 2- Learned Counsel for the assessee invites our attention to circular No. 1979 dated 27.3.2000, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, and points out that as the instructions issued by the Board prohibits filing of an appeal where the quantum of tax is less than Rs.2 Lacs, these appeals would not be maintainable. 8 3- Referring to the averments made by the appellants themselves, in the memo of the appeal, learned counsel points out that the tax liability for each year as is indicated in the appeal, is less than Rs.2 Lacs and, therefore, the appeals would not be maintainable. 4- In support of his contention, learned counsel invites our attention to orders passed under similar circumstances by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.2.2013, in M.A.I.T Nos. 18/2005 and 22/2005 [Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ramkishore Nandkishore] to say that the appeals are not maintainable. 5- 277 (MP); and, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel and Company, (2009) 317 ITR 386 (MP), has decided the question in the following manner: “ The aforesaid judgment specifically lays down that any appeal, if tax effect less than Rs.2 Lakhs, could not have been filed by the Department. From the perusal of the instructions issued by the Board, we find that the Board had issued directions that the appeals will be filed only in cases where the tax effect exceeds Rs. 2 Lakhs in the matter of High Court in appeals u/s 260-A or Reference u/s 256(2). The aforesaid circular is binding on all the authorities under the Board including the appellant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur. The Board has taken this decision in continuation to earlier directions issued by the Board on 28.10.1992 where the monetary limit was Rs.50,000/-. Now, in view the changed circumstances, as directed by the Board by instruction dated 27.3.2000, it is apparent that the appeal or reference below Rs.2 Lakhs, could not have been filed. The instructions of the Board are binding to all the authorities working under the Board including the appellant. This appeal which was filed on 10.1.2005 is fully covered by the instructions 9 issued by the Board on 27.3.2000, and this appeal could not have been filed. The aforesaid position has been clarified by two Division Bench of this Court, in Suresh Chand and Ashok Manibhai (supra). In the result, this appeal is found incompetent and is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 6- Keeping in view the aforesaid and considering the fact that in all these cases also the orders impugned were passed by the appellate authorities and the tax liability is less than Rs.2 Lacs, the Department had no right to file the appeal. 7- Accordingly, all these appeals being found incompetent, are dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) ( MRS. VIMLA JAIN )

J U D G E J U D G E mrs. Mishra

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →