The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt.

1 M. A. I. T. No. 25/01 17.11.14 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri G. N. Purohit, learned Sr. counsel with Shri Oswal, learned counsel for the respondent. Challenging the orders passed by the appellate authorities namely the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the matter of imposition of tax for the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92, a consolidated appeal challenging the orders for the three assessment years have been filed by the department under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri G. N. Purohit, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Oswal invited our attention to the circular dated 27 th March, 2000 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 12.02.13 in M. A. I. T. No. 18/05 and M. A. I. T. No. 22/05 to say that in reference of the aforesaid and in pursuance to the directions issued by the Board as the amount of revenue and the tax liability for the each assessment year is less than ` 2 Lakhs, the appeal filed by the department is not maintainable. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that in each of the assessment year, the tax liability for the assessment year 1989-90 is ` 1,24,100/-, for the assessment year 1990-91, the tax liability is ` 1,06,540/- and for the assessment year 1991-92, the tax liability is ` 1,12,430/-.

2 Nandkishore M. A. I. T. No. 22/05 and by a detailed order the aforesaid cases in the following manner :- “ The aforesaid judgment specifically lays down that any appeal, if tax effect less than ` 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 ` 2 Lakhs in the matter of High Court in appeals u/s 260-A or Reference u/s 256 (2). The aforesaid circular is was ` 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 ` 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 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.” Keeping in view the aforesaid and taking note of the quantum of tax involved, in the case in hand, we are of the considered view that the appeal at the instance of the department is not maintainable, being the incompetent and the same is dismissed. The reference itself is not maintainable and accordingly it is rejected.

(Rajendra Menon) (C. V. Sirpurkar) J U D G E J U D G E Vy/-