TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act, reduced income from other sources from fixed deposit and recurring deposit by an amount of Rs. 3,15,469. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), relying upon the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in Asst. CIT v. Sugosa Oil Mills and Refinery Industries ITA No. 610/Nag./91, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the relief under section 80-I without deducting reliefs under section 80HH of the Act and the decision has been further affirmed by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has referred the question of law for our opinion. 3. Shri Neelabh Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submitted that indisputably the tax effect involved in this reference is less than Rs. 4 lakhs, which is less than the monetary limit fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short "the Board") as per Instruction No. 5 of 2008, dated May 15, 2008, according to which the monetary limit for filing appeal/reference in the High Court has been fixed at Rs. 4 lakhs. 4. Relying upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of CIT v. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) [2009] 318 ITR 149 (Bom), it was argued that the Circul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Departmental appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, for filing reference to the High Court and appeal to the Supreme Court. 10. The Board, vide its instructions dated October 24, 2005, again revised the monetary limits. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the above circular read as under : "2. In partial modification of the above instruction, it has now been decided by the Board that appeals will henceforth be filed only in cases where the tax effect exceeds the revised monetary limits given hereunder : S. No. Income-tax Tax effect Rs. 1. Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal 2,00,000 2. Appeal under section 260A 4,00,000 3. Appeal before the Supreme Court 10,00,000 3. The Board has also decided that in cases involving substantial question of law of importance as well as in cases where the same question of law will repeatedly arise, either in the case concerned or in similar cases, should be separately considered on the merits without being hindered by the monetary limits. 4. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3 above, Instruction No. 1979, dated March 27, 2000, as clarified subsequently in Instruction No. 1985, dated June 29, 2000, will continue to gover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same issue in the case of- (a) the same assessee for any other assessment year ; or (b) any other assessee for the same or any other assessment year. (3) Notwithstanding that no appeal or application for reference has been filed by an income-tax authority pursuant to the orders or instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1), it shall not be lawful for an assessee, being a party in any appeal or reference, to contend that the income-tax authority has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue by not filing an appeal or application for reference in any case. (4) The Appellate Tribunal or court, hearing such appeal or reference, shall have regard to the orders, instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1) and the circumstances under which such appeal or application for reference was filed or not filed in respect of any case. (5) Every order, instruction or direction which has been issued by the Board fixing monetary limits for filing an appeal or application for reference shall be deemed to have been issued under sub-section (1) and the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) shall apply accordingly." 13. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rporation [2009] 318 ITR 144 (Bom) referring to para. 5 of the circular dated May 15, 2008, it was held thus (page 146): "It would be clear from the above that if in the case of an assessee if the disputed issues arise in more than one assessment year, appeals are to be filed only in respect of such assessment year or years in which the tax effect in respect of the disputed issues exceeds the monetary limit specified in paragraph 3. In other words, even if in respect of the same issue in respect of the same assessee for other assessment years the monetary limit is not more than Rs. 4 lakhs, appeals need not be filed. Paragraph 6 makes it clear that in such a case if an appeal is not filed, there will be no presumption that the Income-tax Department has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issues." 16. In the matter of CIT v. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) [2009] 318 ITR 149 (Bom), the Bombay High Court, considering the applicability of monetary limit fixed by the Board, vide Circular dated May 15, 2008, in undecided and pending cases, held that Circular dated May 15, 2008, would be applicable to the cases pending before the Bombay High Court either for admission or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of the Revenue on the ground of tax effect as well as on the merits. 20. Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of CIT v. Smt. Madhu Bai Lodha [2009] 316 ITR 338 (MP). 21. In the matter of CIT v. Kodananad Tea Estates Co. [2005] 275 ITR 244 (Mad), the Madras High Court, while considering the effect of Circular dated October 28, 1992, fixing monetary limit for appeal, allowed the appeal preferred by the Revenue and held thus (page 246) : "The instruction came into force only with effect from April 1, 2000. The assessment years involved in these appeals are earlier to the date from which the notification was given effect to. Hence, the application of notification for dismissing the appeal cannot be legally sustainable. Apart from that, clause (ii) of para. 3 of Instruction No. 1979 provides that where the Board's order, notification, instruction or circular is the subject-matter of an adverse order irrespective of the revenue effect, the appeal has to be decided on the merits. When the applicability of the notification, which is given effect to from April 1, 2000, is questioned before the Tribunal, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TR 149 (Bom) para.11 of the Instruction dated May 15, 2008, were not considered. Even the decision of the jurisdictional court in the matter of Chhajer Packaging and Plastics P. Ltd. [2008] 300 ITR 180 (Bom) wherein the view taken by the Division Bench in Pithwa Engg. Works [2005] 276 ITR 519 (Bom) has not been followed, has also not been considered. 24. From a bare perusal of section 268A of the Act, it is evident that orders, instructions or directions issued by the Board to the income-tax authorities for the purposes of fixing the monetary limits are binding on the income- tax authorities and the Tribunals or the courts hearing such appeal or reference are required to take into consideration the orders, instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1) of section 268A of the Act. There is no ambiguity in Circular dated May 15, 2008, fixing the monetary limit for filing appeal/reference before the Tribunal, High Courts and the Supreme Court. The Circular, in no uncertain terms, directs that the same would apply to the appeals filed on or after May 15, 2008, and the cases where the appeals have been filed before May 15, 2008, will be governed by Instructions on the s....