Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘C, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
direction with regard to a combined order passed by the first appellate authority. That is, if in one of the years the tax effect is more than Rs.10 lakhs and the Revenue decides to file an appeal, in respect of other years covered by the said order also, Revenue is eligible to file appeal, even though the tax effect in each of those years is less than Rs.10 lakhs. It was also clarified that merely because the appeal is dismissed for want of tax effect, it does not come in the way of the Department in filing appeal for other years(s), and it does not mean that the Department has acquiesced the issue.
The above circular was specifically made applicable to all pending appeals. In the present case, the tax effect on the addition in dispute, which was deleted by the CIT(A) by the impugned order is indisputably below 10.00 lakhs.
The legislature in its wisdom has introduced S.268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereby the Board is empowered to issue orders/instructions/directions to the income-tax authorities, fixing the monetary limits for the purpose of regulating the filing of appeals. In the light of the circular dated 10.12.2015, issued by the CBDT in exercise of the powers conferred in it by subsection (1) of S.268A, we are of the view that the appeal filed herein should not have been pressed by the Revenue.
The Learned Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the Revenue effect in this appeal is less than the prescribed limit in para-3 of the above circular issued by the CBDT. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue as withdrawn/not pressed, as pronounced in the open court.
However, the revenue is at liberty to move appropriate application/petition in case it is found that the case is covered by one of the exception(s) carved out in the said Circular.
In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 6th January, 2016.