TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Dismisses Revenue Appeal for AY 2003-04 Due to Monetary Limit</h1> <h3>Income-tax Officer, Ward-3(3) Versus Smt. Saraswati Devi Gehlot</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2003-04 due to the tax effect falling below the monetary limit set by ... CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 09.02.2011 - Monetary limit for filing the appeal to Tribunal revised to Rs. 3,00,000 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1999 – Held that:- Following CIT v. Delhi Race Club Ltd. [2011 (3) TMI 1488 - High Court of Delhi] - The instructions issued in the Circulars by CBDT are applicable for pending cases also - Tax effect in the appeal is less than Rs. 3,00,000 – The appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Issues:1. Appeal filed by Revenue and cross objection by assessee against CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2003-04.2. Interpretation and application of Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Relevance and impact of CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2011 on filing appeals before the Tribunal.4. Applicability of CBDT circulars to pending cases.5. Determination of monetary limit for not filing appeal before ITAT.Analysis:1. The appeal and cross objection were filed against the CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2003-04. The appellant decided to withdraw the cross objection, leading to its dismissal.2. Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Board to issue orders fixing monetary limits for filing appeals. The provision restricts income-tax authorities from filing appeals where the tax effect is below the specified limit. The Board's instructions are binding on authorities, preventing unnecessary appeals.3. The CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2011 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 3,00,000. This instruction, along with Section 268A, guided the decision that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed amount.4. Judicial precedents from the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Delhi High Court emphasized the applicability of CBDT circulars to pending cases. The decisions reinforced that circulars, like Instruction No. 3/11, setting monetary limits for appeals, are relevant for ongoing matters.5. Considering the legal provisions and court rulings, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without delving into the case's merits. The decision was based on the determination that the appeal should not have been filed due to the monetary limit specified by the CBDT instruction.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the legal provisions applied, and the court's decision based on the interpretation of relevant statutes and circulars.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
