2008 (2) TMI 657

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....D.T. Instruction No. 2, dated 24-10-2005, the department should not have filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, in Circular No. 1979, dated 27-3-2000 had asked all officers of the Income-tax Department under their control not to file appeals before the Appellate Tribunal in cases where the tax effect involved in appeal did not exceed Rs. 1 lakh, the limit was thereafter enhanced to Rs. 2 lakhs vide Instruction No. 2, dated 24-10-2005. These instructions in question are binding on all departmental authorities and they could not be by-passed and treated as of no consequence on the pretext that these were private only, and the authorities are bound to follow, comply with and see that the policies laid down by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellate Tribunal, High Courts and the Supreme Court, the Central Board of Direct Taxes by Circular F.No. 279/126/98-ITJ, dated 27-3-2000, revised the monetary limits. It was held that in case of matters not covered by the exceptions like: (i) where revenue audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, (ii) where the Board's order, notification, instruction or circular is the subject-matter of an adverse order, (iii) where prosecution proceedings are contemplated against the assessee, and (iv) where the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act are under challenge, the appeals filed by the department should be dismissed. It was observed by ITAT Special Bench in the case of ITO v. Bir Engg. Works [2005] 94 ITD 164....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f cases. These instructions could be in the form of guidelines, principles or procedure to be followed by the income-tax authorities in the work relating to assessment, collection of revenue or the initiation of proceedings for the imposition of penalties. Here also the Board may, if it is of the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest to do so, publish and circulate such instructions. Therefore, it is not in all cases that instructions/circulars issued by the Board under section 119(2) are published by the Board. Thus, the only difference between sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 119 is that while sub-section (2) is more specific with reference to particular class of income or class of cases. The contention of the ....