ACIT, CC-XVIII, Kolkata, Kolkata v. Aditya Bikram Chamaria, Kolkata

ITA 1076/KOL/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2014

Appeal Details

RSA Number 107623514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ACAPC4645F
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 1076/KOL/2010
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, CC-XVIII, Kolkata, Kolkata
Respondent Aditya Bikram Chamaria, Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2014
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 25-05-2010
Judgment Text
A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE . . . . ! ! ! ! /AND ' #!' ' #!' ' #!' ' #!' ) [BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL AM & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JM] !$ / I.T.A NO.1076/KOL/2010 #% &'/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. ADITYA BIKRAM CHAMARIA CC-XVIII KOLKATA. ()* /APPELLANT ) (PAN:ACAPC4645F) (+ )*/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 31.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.07.2014 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SANJAY MUKHERJEE JDIT SR. DR FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI MANOJ KATARUKA ADVOCAT E / ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JM : THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF C IT(A) CENTRAL-II KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 96/CC-XVIII/CIT(A)-C-II/KOL/09-10 DATED 22.03.2010. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-XVIII KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 2 2.05.2009. PENALTY IN DISPUTE WAS LEVIED BY ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-XVIII KOLKATA U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.07.2009. 2. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS STATED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE ITAT. IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE QUANTUM OF PENALTY IS RS.3 77 441/-. THE APPEAL RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 25.05.2010. LD COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE RECENT INSTRUCTION NO. 5/2014 ISSUED BY CBDT ON 10. 07.2014 REVISING MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE ITAT FIXING THE TAX EFFECT LIMIT OF R S. 4 LACS THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE ONLY ISSUE NOW REMAI NS BEFORE US IS WHETHER THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE WHICH IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF TAX EFFECT I N VIEW OF THE BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO.5/2014 ISSUED ON 10.07.2014 REVISING THE MONETARY LIMITS F OR FILING OF APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE ITAT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT. LD. SR-DR DRAWN OUR AT TENTION TO PARA-11 OF THE INSTRUCTION AND ARGUED THAT THIS WILL APPLY TO THE APPEALS FILED ON OR AFTER 10.07.2014 AND NOT TO THE APPEAL FILED PRIOR TO 10-07.2014. HENCE HE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED T HE ARGUMENT OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT THIS INSTRUCTION IS PROSPECTIVE AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE. 2 ITA NO.1076/K/2010 ADITYA BIKRAM CHAMARIA. AY 2007-08 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AT THE OUTSET IT IS SEEN THAT HONBLE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S. P. S. JAIN & CO. IN ITA NO.179/1991 DATED 02.08.2010 HAS HELD AS UND ER: THIS COURT CAN VERY WELL TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF T HE FACT THAT BY PASSAGE OF TIME MONEY VALUE HAS GONE DOWN THE COST OF LITIGATION EXPENSES HAS GONE UP THE ASSESSEES ON THE FILE OF THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN INCREASED CONSEQUENTLY THE BURDEN ON THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO INCREASED TO A TREMENDOUS EXTENT. THE CORRIDORS OF THE SUPERIOR C OURTS ARE CHOCKED WITH HUGE PENDENCY OF CASES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE BOARD HAS RIGHTLY T AKEN A DECISION NOT TO FILE REFERENCES IF THE TAX EFFECT LESS THAN RS. 2 LAKHS. THE SAME POLICY FOR OLD MATTERS NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN OUR VIEW THE BOARDS CIRCULAR DATED MARCH 27 2 000 IS VERY MUCH APPLICABLE EVEN TO THE OLD REFERENCES WHICH ARE STILL UNDECIDED. THE DEPARTME NT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PROCEEDING WITH THE OLD REFERENCES WHEREIN THE TAX IMPACT IS MINIMAL. THUS THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO PROCEEDS WITH DECADES OLD REFERENCES HAVING NEGLIGIBLE TAX EFFECT . SIMILARLY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT V. SURESHCHANDRA DURGAPRASAD KHATOD (HUF) (2012) 253 CTR 492 (GUJ) HAS SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERE D INSTRUCTION NO. 3/2011 AND HELD THAT THE SAME WOULD APPLY TO PENDING CASES AS WELL EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A SPECIFIC CONDITION IN THAT INSTRUCTION ALSO THAT THE SAME WOULD APPLY TO APPEA LS FILE ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 2011. HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER:- 6. THE QUESTION ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 HAD BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE AURANGABAD BENCH OF T HE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2007 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX V. SMT. VIJAYA V. KAVEKAR DECIDED ON 29.7.2011. THE DIVISION BENCH A FTER CONSIDERING EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS AND VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COURTS ON INSTRUCTIONS RELYING ON THE DECISION IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) REPORTED IN (2010) 229 CTR (BOM) 77 HAS HELD IN PA RAGRAPHS 9 10 11 14 AND 17 AS UNDER: '9. AS STATED EARLIER THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS AMEND ED AND SECTION 268A HAS BEEN INTRODUCED ON THE STATUTE BOOK WITH RETROS PECTIVE EFFECT. SECTION 268A CARVES OUT AN EXCEPTION FOR FILING OF APPEALS AND REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 260 A OF THE ACT. THE LEGISLATURE HAS PRESC RIBED THAT THE CBDT IS EMPOWERED TO ISSUE CIRCULARS AND INSTRUCTIONS FROM TIME TO TIME WITH REGARD TO FILING OF APPEALS DEPENDING ON THE TAX EF FECT INVOLVED. THEREAFTER IN 2008 CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 5 OF 2008 DATED 15TH MAY 2008 WAS ISSUED. THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF 'COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX V/S MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) REPORTED IN '(2010) 2 29 CTR (BOM) 77 INTERPRETED THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR. THE CIRCULAR WA S ISSUED IN SUPERSESSION OF ALL EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD. THE MONETARY LIMIT WAS INCREASED AND APPEALS WERE TO BE FILED UN DER SECTION 260A THEREAFTER ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT EXCE EDED RS. 4 LACS. PARAGRAPH 11 OF THAT INSTRUCTION STIPULATED THAT IT WAS APPLICABLE TO APPEALS FILED ON OR AFTER 15TH MAY 2008. IT WAS FU RTHER PROVIDED THAT IN CASES WHERE APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE 15TH MAY 20 08 THEY WOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT WHICH WERE OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEALS WERE FILED. THE INSTRUCTION WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 268A(1) OF THE ACT. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE IN THAT CASE WAS THAT THE INSTRUCTION ISSU ED ON 15TH MAY 2008 DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DEPARTMENT FROM CONTINUING WIT H THE APPEALS AND/OR 3 ITA NO.1076/K/2010 ADITYA BIKRAM CHAMARIA. AY 2007-08 PETITIONS FILED PRIOR TO 15TH MAY 2008 IF THEY IN VOLVED A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW OF A RECURRING NATURE NOTWITHSTAND ING THE FACT THAT THE TOTAL CUMULATIVE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS WAS LESS THAN RS. 4 LACS. IT WAS SUBMITTED SUCH APPEALS WHICH WERE FIL ED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF INSTRUCTION AND WHERE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF L AW WERE RAISED WERE REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS. THE COURT WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OBSERVED THAT PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE CIRCULAR MADE IT C LEAR THAT NO APPEALS WOULD BE FILED IN THE CASES INVOLVING TAX EFFECT LE SS THAN RS. 4 LACS NOTWITHSTANDING THE ISSUE BEING OF RECURRING NATURE . RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT IN CIT V/S POLYCOTT CORPORATION THE COUR T OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: '6 THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL VERDICT MAKES IT CLEAR TH AT THE CIRCULAR DT. 15TH MAY 2008 IN GENERAL AND PARA (5) THEREOF IN PARTIC ULAR LAY DOWN THAT EVEN IF THE SAME ISSUE IN RESPECT OF SAME ASSESSEE FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS IS INVOLVED EVEN THEN THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT FI LE APPEAL IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 4 LAKHS. IN OTHER WORDS EV EN IF THE QUESTION OF LAW IS OF RECURRING NATURE EVEN THEN THE REVENUE IS NO T EXPECTED TO FILE APPEALS IN SUCH CASES IF THE TAX IMPACT IS LESS THAN THE M ONETARY LIMIT FIXED BY THE CBDT.' 7. ONE FAILS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE REVENUE ON THE FACE OF THE ABOVE CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT CAN CONTEND THAT THE CIRC ULAR DT. 15TH MAY 2008 ISSUED BY THE CBDT IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASES FILED AFTER 15TH MAY 2008 AND IN COMPLIANCE THEREOF THEY DO NOT FILE APPEALS IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 4 LAKHS; BUT THE SAID CIRCULAR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASES FILED PRIOR TO 15TH MAY 2008 I.E. TO THE OLD PENDING APPEALS EVEN IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 4 LAKHS. IN OUR VIEW THERE IS NO LOGIC BEHIND THIS BELIEF ENTERTAINED BY THE REVENUE.' THE COURT HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE PREVAILING INST RUCTIONS FIXING THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR THE TAX EFFECT WOULD HOLD GOOD EVEN FOR P ENDING CASES. ACCORDINGLY THE COURT DISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS HAVING A TAX EFFECT OF LESS THAN RS. 4 LACS. 10. THE NEW CBDT INSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON 9 TH FEBRUARY 2011 BEING INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011. THE MONETARY LIMIT HAS B EEN RAISED AGAIN AND CLAUSE 3 OF THE INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDES THAT APPEALS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS PRESCRIB ED HENCEFORTH. THE MONETARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED FOR FILING AN APPEAL UNDER SECTIO N 260A BEFORE THE HIGH COURT HAS BEEN RAISED TO RS. 10 LACS. THIS INSTRUCTION IS IDENTICAL TO THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 5 OF 2008. CLAUSE 10 OF THIS CIRCUL AR INDICATES THAT MONETARY LIMITS WOULD NOT APPLY TO WRIT MATTERS AND DIRECT TAX MATT ERS OTHER THAN INCOME TAX. IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS NOT Q UANTIFIABLE THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD TAKE A DECISION TO FILE APPEALS ON MERITS OF EACH CASE. CLAUSE 11 AGAIN PROVIDES THAT THE INSTRUCTION WOULD APPLY TO APPEAL S FILED ON OR AFTER ....2011 AND APPEALS FILED BEFORE ...... 2011 WOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEALS WE RE FILED. 11. IN OUR OPINION WHEN A SIMILAR CLAUSE HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN CIT VS. MADHUKAR INAMDAR (SU PRA) THE SAME PRINCIPLES MUST APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASES ALSO AS WE HAVE FO UND THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF 15TH MAY 2008 IS PARA- MATERIAL WITH THE INSTRUCTION OF 9TH FEBRUARY 2011. 4 ITA NO.1076/K/2010 ADITYA BIKRAM CHAMARIA. AY 2007-08 14. SIMILARLY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S DELHI RACE CLUB LTD.' DECIDED ON MARCH 03 201 1 BY RELYING ON ITS EARLIER JUDGEMENT 'COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX DELHI-III V/S M/ S P.S. JAIN AND CO. DECIDED ON 2ND AUGUST 2010 HAS HELD THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR RAISING THE MONETARY LIMIT OF THE TAX EFFECT TO RS. 10 LACS WOU LD BE APPLICABLE TO PENDING CASES ALSO. 17. IT IS TRUE THAT THIS JUDGEMENT IN CHHAJER'S CAS E (SUPRA) WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE DIVISION BENCH WHILE DECIDING EITHER MADHUKAR'S CASE (SUPRA) OR THE CASE OF POLYCOT CORPORATION (SUPRA). HOWEVER T HE INSTRUCTION OF 2005 WHICH WAS CONSIDERED IN CHHAJER'S CASE HAS ALSO BEEN INTE RPRETED IN POLYCOT CORPORATION (SUPRA). THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE COU RT HAS BEEN THAT THE CBDT INSTRUCTION WOULD APPLY TO PENDING CASES AS WELL. T HE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF SUCH INSTRUCTIONS IS TO REDUCE THE PENDING LITIGATION WH ERE THE TAX EFFECT IS CONSIDERABLY SMALL. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION THE TAX APPEALS A RE REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSED AS THEY ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME TAX AND THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011.' 7. THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE KARNATAKA HI GH COURT IN ITA NO.3191 OF 2005 IN THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX VS. M/S. RA NKA & RANKA DECIDED ON 2.11.2011 WHEREIN THE DIVISION BENCH HAS CONSIDERE D INSTRUCTION NO.3 AND THE NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY HAD HELD AS UNDER: '(I) INSTRUCTION NO.3/11 IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE PENDING APPEALS. (II) AS THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF MONETARY LIMIT WITHOUT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE D EPARTMENT IS AT LIBERTY TO PROCEED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN FUTURE IF THERE AN Y AMOUNT DUE FROM THE ASSESSEE ON SIMILAR ISSUE AND IF IT IS ABOVE THE M ONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED.' 4. WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE CASE LAW OF HONBLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SURESHCHANDRA DURGAPRASAD KHATOD (HUF) (SUPRA) THAT IN THE SIMILAR SITUATION AND E XACTLY IDENTICAL INSTRUCTIONS WERE APPLIED TO THE APPEALS FILED RETROSPECTIVELY. HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS DISCUSSED THAT ALMOST ALL HIGH COURTS ARE OF TH E UNANIMOUS VIEW CONSIDERING THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF SUCH INSTRUCTIONS THAT TO REDUCE THE P ENDING LITIGATION WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS CONSIDERABLE LOW OR SMALL THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTA INABLE. THE RECENT INSTRUCTION REVISING THE MONETARY LIMIT TO RS. 4 LAKH FOR FILING APPEAL BEFO RE ITAT ON INCOME TAX MATTERS AS ISSUED VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.5/2014 FNO279/MISC.142/2007-ITJ(PT) DATED 10 TH JULY 2014 WILL APPLY TO PENDING APPEALS ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAME IS EXACTL Y IDENTICAL TO EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS. THE RELEVANT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT READS AS UNDER: REFERENCE IS INVITED TO BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO 3/2 011 DATED 09/02/2011 WHEREIN MONETARY LIMITS AND OTHER CONDITIONS FOR FILING DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS (IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS) BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURT W ERE SPECIFIED. 2. IN SUPERSESSION OF THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION IT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE BOARD THAT DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS MAY BE FILED ON MERITS BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURT KEEPING IN VIEW THE MONETARY LIMITS A ND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BELOW. 5 ITA NO.1076/K/2010 ADITYA BIKRAM CHAMARIA. AY 2007-08 3. HENCEFORTH APPEALS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES W HERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER:- S NO. APPEALS IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMITS (IN RS) 1 BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 4 00 000/- 2 U/S 260A BEFORE HIGH COURT 10 00 000/- 3 BEFORE SUPREME COURT 25 00 000/- IT IS CLARIFIED THAT AN APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED MERELY BECAUSE THE TAX EFFECT IN A CASE EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED ABOVE. FILIN G OF APPEAL IN SUCH CASES IS TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 4. FOR THIS PURPOSE TAX EFFECT MEANS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AND THE TAX THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGEABL E HAD SUCH TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES AG AINST WHICH APPEAL IS INTENDED TO BE FILED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS DISPUTED ISSUES ). HOWEVER THE TAX WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY INTEREST THEREON EXCEPT WHERE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST ITS ELF IS IN DISPUTE. IN CASE THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST IS THE ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST SHALL BE THE TAX EFFECT. IN CASES WHERE RETURNED LOSS IS REDUCED OR ASSESSED AS INCOM E THE TAX EFFECT WOULD INCLUDE NOTIONAL TAX ON DISPUTED ADDITIONS. IN CASE OF PENALTY ORDER S THE TAX EFFECT WILL MEAN QUANTUM OF PENALTY DELETED OR REDUCED IN THE ORDER TO BE APPEA LED AGAINST. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CALCULATE THE TAX EF FECT SEPARATELY FOR EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THE CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE. IF IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE THE DISPUTED ISSUES ARISE IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT Y EAR APPEAL CAN BE FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFE CT IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 . NO APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 . IN OTHER WORDS HENCEFORTH APPEALS CAN BE FILED ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TAX EFFECT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER IN CASE O F A COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE A SSESSMENT YEAR AND COMMON ISSUES IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR APPEAL SHALL BE FILE D IN RESPECT OF ALL SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS EVEN IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMITS IN AN Y OF THE YEAR(S) IF IT IS DECIDED TO FILED APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR(S) I N WHICH TAX EFFEC T EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED. IN CASE WHERE A COMPOSITE ORDER / JUDGMENT INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSEE EACH ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEALT WITH SEPARAT ELY. 6. IN A CASE WHERE APPEAL BEFORE A TRIBUNAL OR A CO URT IS NOT FILED ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE TAX EFFECT BEING LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED ABOVE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SHALL SPECIFICALLY RECORD THAT EVEN THOUGH THE DECISION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE APPEAL IS NOT BEING FILED ONLY ON THE CONSIDERATION THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN THIS INSTRUCTION . FURTHER IN SUCH CASES THERE WILL BE NO PRESUMP TION THAT THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT HAS ACQUIESCED IN THE DECISION ON THE DI SPUTED ISSUES. THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT BE PRECLUDED FROM FILING AN AP PEAL AGAINST THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR OR IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR IF THE T AX EFFECT EXCEEDS THE SPECIFIED MONETARY LIMITS. 7. IN THE PAST A NUMBER OF INSTANCES HAVE COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE BARD WHEREBY AN ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RELIEF FROM THE TRIBUNAL OR TH E COURT ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS IMPLICITLY ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL OR COURT IN THE CASE OF THE 6 ITA NO.1076/K/2010 ADITYA BIKRAM CHAMARIA. AY 2007-08 ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR OR IN THE CA SE OF ANY OTHER CASE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR BY NOT FILING AN APPEAL ON T HE SAME DISPUTED ISSUES. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES/COUNSELS MUST MAKE EVE RY EFFORT TO BRING TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT THAT THE APPEAL IN SUCH CASES WAS O TILED OR NOT ADMITTED ONLY FOR THE REASON OF THE TAX EFFECT BEING LESS THAN THE SPECIF IED MONETARY LIMIT AND THEREFORE NO INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN THAT THE DECISIONS RENDER ED THEREIN WERE ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY THEY SHOULD IMPRESS UPON T HE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT THAT SUCH CASES DO NOT HAVE ANY PRECEDENT VALUE. AS THE EVIDE NCE OF NOT FILING APPEAL DUE TO THIS INSTRUCTION MAY HAVE TO BE PRODUCED IN COURTS THE JUDICIAL FOLDERS IN THE OFFICE OF CSIT MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A SYSTEMIC MANNER FOR EASY RETRIEV AL. 8. ADVERSE JUDGMENTS RELATING TO THE FOLLOWING ISSU ES SHOULD BE CONTESTED ON MERITS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE TAX EFFECT ENTAILED IS LES S THAN THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 ABOVE OR THERE IS NO TAX EFFECT. (A) WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROVIS IONS OF AN ACT OR RULE ARE UNDER CHALLENGE OR (B) WHERE BOARDS ORDER NOTIFICATION INSTRUCTION OR CIRCULAR HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ILLEGAL OR ULTRA VIRES OR WHERE REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION IN THE CASE HAS BEE N ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 9. THE PROPOSAL FOR FILING SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION U NDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD IN ALL CASES BE SENT TO THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME-TAX (LEGAL & RESEARCH) NEW DELHI AND THE DECISION TO FILE SPECI AL LEAVE PETITION SHALL BE IN CONSULTATION WITH THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE. 10. THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 ABOVE S HALL NOT APPLY TO WRIT MATTERS AND DIRECT TAX MATTERS OTHER THAN INCOME TAX. FILING OF APPEAL S IN OTHER DIRECT TAX MATTERS SHALL CONTINUE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF STATUTE & RULES. FURTHER FILING OF APPEAL IN CASES OF INCOME TAX WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS NOT QUANTIFIABLE OR NOT INVOLVED SUCH AS THE CASE OF REGISTRATION OF TRUSTS OR INSTITUTIO NS UNDER SECTION 12 A OF THE IT ACT 1961 SHALL NOT BE GOVERNED BY THE LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PA R 3 ABOVE AND DECISION TO FILE APPEAL IN SUCH CASES MAY BE TAKEN ON MERITS OF A PARTICULAR C ASE. 11. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY TO APPEALS FILED ON OR AFTER 10 TH JULY 2014. HOWEVER THE CASES WHERE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE 10 TH JULY 2014 WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEA L WAS FILED. 12. THIS ISSUE UNDER SECTION 268A (1) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT 1961. 5. ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH THE LD. DR COULD NOT PO INT OUT ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE CIRCULAR AS UNDER: (A) THAT THIS IS A LOSS CASE HAVING TAX EFFECT MOR E THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT WHICH SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT (B) THAT THIS IS A COMPOSITE ORDER FOR MANY ASSESS MENT YEARS WHERE TAX EFFECT WILL BE MORE THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT AS PER PARA 5 OF A BOVE INSTRUCTIONS (C) THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE IN THE CASE OF REVE NUE WHERE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROVISION OF THE ACT OR I.T. RULES 1962 ARE UNDER C HALLENGE (D) THAT BOARDS ORDER NOTIFICATION INSTRUCTION OR CIRCULAR HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ILLEGAL OR ULTRA VIRES 7 ITA NO.1076/K/2010 ADITYA BIKRAM CHAMARIA. AY 2007-08 (E) THAT REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION IN THE CASE HAS BEEN A CCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE SAME IS UNDER CHALLENGE. THE LD. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY OF THE EXCEPTION S AS PROVIDED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY THIS BEING A LOW TAX EFFECT CASE WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IN LIMINE WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED . 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- . . . . ' #!' ' #!' ' #!' ' #!' (P. K. BANSAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 31 ST JULY 2014 -. #/0 #1 JD.(SR.P.S.) 2 +##3 43&5- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* / APPELLANT ACIT CC-XVIII KOLKATA. 2 + )* / RESPONDENT SHRI ADITYA BIKRAM CHAMARIA 1/A VANS ITART ROW KOLKATA-700 001. 3 . # ( )/ THE CIT(A) KOLKATA 4. 5. # / CIT KOLKATA 3:#; +# / DR KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA 3 +#/ TRUE COPY