TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 652
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Vikram Bhatnagar [IT Appeal No. 60 (Delhi) of 2002, order dated 10-3-2006]. 3. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pithwa Engg. Works [2005] 276 1TR 519, have observed as under : "One fails to understand how the revenue can contend that so far as new cases are concerned, the circular issued by the Board is binding on them and in compliance with the said instructions, they do not file references if the tax effect is less than Rs. 2 lakhs. But the same approach is not adopted with respect to the old referred cases even if the tax effect is less than Rs. 2 lakhs. In our view, there is no logic behind this approach. This Court can very well take judicial notice of the 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 increased; consequently, the burden on the department also increased to a tremendous extent. The corridors of the superior courts are choked with huge pendency of cases. In this view of the matter, the Board has rightly taken a decision not to file references if the tax effect is less than Rs. 2 lakhs. The same policy for old....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer was with regard to certain deposits in the bank account of the assessee and since the amounts were not explained, tax was levied. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the view canvassed by the assessee and held that the explanation given by him was acceptable and, in any case, the assessee cannot be expected to recollect each and every entry made in the bank. It may be mentioned that the amount in dispute is Rs. 30,000 for the assessment year 1999-2000 and Rs. 83,000 for the assessment year 2001-02. It may also be mentioned that for the assessment year 1999-2000, the Assessing Officer has already accepted the explanation with regard to a gift of Rs. 60,000. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), an appeal was filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that in view of Instructions issued by the CBDT where the tax effect is less than Rs. 1 lakh, the Department should not file an appeal before the Tribunal. In the present case, the tax effect is less than Rs. 1 lakh. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal did not entertain the appeal. The revenue, feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es particularly, it was very difficult for a small assessee to come from a remote and distant place to defend an appeal filed against him in the Tribunal. The legal fees payable to the lawyer, travelling and other incidental expenses involved, were likely to be more than the tax effect in the appeal and the financial loss to such an assessee would be more, even if he legally succeeded in the appeal. Therefore, the circular/instruction definitely aimed at redressing problems of small assessees. The assessees are entitled to urge the Tribunal to enforce it. It was observed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CWT v. A. Annamalai [2002] 258 ITR 675 that in order to reduce the litigation for filing Departmental appeals/references before the Income-tax Appellate 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) wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lars 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 revenue could not be accepted that instructions issued under sub-section (1) were more in the nature of administrative instructions and, therefore, were not binding on the authorities because section itself mandates that such instructions shall be followed by the revenue authorities. Nowhere section 119 provides any exception to income-tax authorities not to follow such instructions except in a case where such instructions interfere with the discretion of Commissioner (Appeals) or with the jurisdiction and power of particular income-tax authority in a particular case. Admittedly, instructions issued by the CBDT prescribing monetary limit for filing the appeals before the Tribunal, High Court or Supreme Court are not in nature which could interfere with the discretion of Commissioner (Appeals) or interfere with the powers and jurisdiction of income-tax authorities to complete the assessment order....