Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgments — 2016

The Tribunal allowed the respondent-assessee's applications for dismissal. The Tribunal held that the Department's contention that the case was reopened under Section 148 based on audit objections and that the revisional order under Section 263 was passed on 31.03.2004, thereby exempting it from the monetary limit, could not be accepted. The Tribunal found that the order impugned before the ITAT was the revisional order passed under Section 263, and the Department's appeal was against the ITAT's decision to set aside this revisional order. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appeals would not come under Clause (c) of paragraph 8 of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, since the monetary limit involved in the appeals was less than Rs. 20,00,000/-, the appeals were disposed of in accordance with the circular, leaving the questions of law open.

The Tribunal allowed the respondent-assessee's applications for dismissal. The Tribunal held that the Department's contention that the case was reopened under Section 148 based on audit objections and that the revisional order under Section 263 was passed on 31.03.2004, thereby exempting it from the monetary limit, could not be accepted. The Tribunal found that the order impugned before the ITAT was the revisional order passed under Section 263, and the Department's appeal was against the ITAT's decision to set aside this revisional order. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appeals would not come under Clause (c) of paragraph 8 of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, since the monetary limit involved in the appeals was less than Rs. 20,00,000/-, the appeals were disposed of in accordance with the circular, leaving the questions of law open.

The Tribunal allowed the respondent-assessee's applications for dismissal. The Tribunal held that the Department's contention that the case was reopened under Section 148 based on audit objections and that the revisional order under Section 263 was passed on 31.03.2004, thereby exempting it from the monetary limit, could not be accepted. The Tribunal found that the order impugned before the ITAT was the revisional order passed under Section 263, and the Department's appeal was against the ITAT's decision to set aside this revisional order. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appeals would not come under Clause (c) of paragraph 8 of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, since the monetary limit involved in the appeals was less than Rs. 20,00,000/-, the appeals were disposed of in accordance with the circular, leaving the questions of law open.

The Tribunal allowed the respondent-assessee's applications for dismissal of the appeals. The Tribunal held that the Department's contention that the case was re-opened under Section 148 based on audit objections did not exempt it from the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment order was passed in favour of the assessee, and it was the subsequent revisional order under Section 263 that was impugned before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeals did not fall under any exception to the circular. Consequently, since the monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- was not met, the appeals were disposed of, leaving the questions of law open.

The Tribunal allowed the respondent-assessee's applications for dismissal. The Tribunal held that the Department's contention that the case was reopened under Section 148 based on audit objections and that the revisional order under Section 263 was passed on 31.03.2004, thereby exempting it from the monetary limit, could not be accepted. The Tribunal found that the order impugned before the ITAT was the revisional order passed under Section 263, and the Department's appeal was against the ITAT's decision to set aside this revisional order. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appeals would not come under Clause (c) of paragraph 8 of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, since the monetary limit involved in the appeals was less than Rs. 20,00,000/-, the appeals were disposed of in accordance with the circular, leaving the questions of law open.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of approximately 2 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons indicated in the application to be acceptable. Regarding the substantive appeal, the Tribunal held that the questions raised and the orders challenged were identical to those previously considered and decided in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Vs. M/s Global Reality in I.T.A.No.40/2012. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP filed against the order in the M/s Global Reality case. Furthermore, the Tribunal had already dismissed several other similar appeals filed by the Revenue, following the decision in M/s Global Reality. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to grant any indulgence and dismissed the present appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals raising identical issues already decided by higher authorities or on which consistent views have been taken by the Tribunal and upheld by the Supreme Court, should be dismissed without re-adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous civil application (M.C.C. No.186/2016) for the reasons stated therein and more so as the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of the Advocate, in the interest of justice. Consequently, I.T.A. No.60/2010 was restored to the file to its original number and taken up for hearing forthwith. Regarding the appeal itself, the Tribunal noted that the monetary limit involved was Rs. 15,28,430/-, which is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-. In view of the Circular dated 10th December, 2015, issued by the CBDT, the appeal was disposed of leaving questions of law open. The application for condonation of delay (I.A. No.1561/2016) was also disposed of accordingly. The principle applied is that procedural delays caused by advocates should be condoned in the interest of justice, and appeals below a certain monetary threshold can be disposed of by leaving the substantial questions of law open, as per CBDT directives.