2008 (6) TMI 235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c), when the additions made in the assessment order have been confirmed in the quantum appeal by the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the facts of the case of Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. and other similar cases have been referred to a Larger Bench by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court itself in the case of CIT v. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (ITA No. 326 of 2006). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of D.M. Manasvi v. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....revenue falls within the exceptions provided in the instructions, the Department should clearly plead in the memorandum of appeal that the appeal falls in the exceptions and in the absence of such a pleading in the memorandum of appeal, normally the appeal should not be entertained. It was also submitted that in the present case, there is no such pleading in the memorandum of appeal that this appeal of the revenue falls within the exceptions provided for in the instructions. 4. Regarding remaining two appeals for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 i.e. ITA Nos. 4059/Delhi/2007 and 4060/Delhi/2007, it was submitted by him that in these two years, the matter should be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for a decision on meri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of Hyderabad Bench as cited above and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record and have gone through the judgment cited by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee. We are in agreement with him that the appeal of the revenue for assessment year 1999-2000 is not maintainable because the tax effect is only Rs. 23,947 which is much below the said limit of Rs. 2 lakhs as per CBDT Instruction No. 2 of 2005, dated 24-10-2005. Regarding the contention of the learned Departmental Representative of the revenue that the tax effect should be considered cumulatively including the tax effect in assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02, we find that this is....