ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RAJ KATHA PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The Ld. DR submitted that the tax effect involved in the present appeals are less than 10,00,000/-.

Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:

In the past, a number of instances have come to the notice of the Board, whereby an assessee has claimed relief from the Tribunal or the Court only on the ground that the Department has implicitly accepted the decision of the Tribunal or Court in the case of the assessee for any other assessment year or in the case of any other assessee for the same or any other assessment year, by not filing an appeal on the same disputed issues. The Departmental representative/counsels must make every effort to bring to the notice of the Tribunal or the Court that the appeal in such cases was not filed or not admitted only for the reason of the tax effect being less that the specified monetary limit and, therefore, no inference should be drawn that the decisions rendered therein were acceptable to the Department. Accordingly, they should impress upon the Tribunal or the Court that such cases do not have any precedent value. a the evidence of not filing appeal due to this instruction may have to be produced in courts, the judicial folders in the office of CITs must be maintained in a systemic manner for easy retrieval.

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 Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/ not pressed.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.”

Thus, this being pending appeals are covered by the CBDT Circular No. F. No. 279/ Misc.142/207 ITJ(Pt) dated 10th December, 2015. The Ld. DR submitted that these appeals be dismissed as not pressed.

Considering the submissions of the Ld. DR, the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed as not pressed. However, this dismissal of Revenue’s appeals will not hold as precedence in subsequent proceedings.

In result, the appeals are dismissed as not pressed by the Revenue.