TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the tax and interest is less than the minimum monetary limit stipulated by the Board for appeal before it. The appeal was filed before the Hon'ble ITAT on 02.02.2011 and the tax effect is Rs.2,15,810/- which is above the minimum prescribed limit as per Instruction No.5/2008 which was in force at the time of filing the appeal. The observation of the Hon'ble ITAT in its order in Para 9 at Page 4 is not applicable to this case. In view of this, it is prayed that the Hon'ble ITAT may suitably amend its order as the Instruction No.5/2008 was still in existence." 2. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR reiterated the submissions made in the aforesaid M.A. dated 17.02.2012 and requested to recall the order dated 17.10.2011. 3. The ld. counsel for the assessee furnished written submissions and also reiterated the same during the course of hearing, the said submissions read as under:- "1. This Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the Revenue to amend the order passed by the Honourable Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in ITA/94/B/2011 dated 17/10/2011 for the Assessment year 2007-08 as the monetary limit not to prefer the appeal by the Department was Rs. 2 lakhs on 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT v. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) (318 ITR 149)(Bom) held as under:- " The Circular dated May 15, 2008 in general and paragraph (5) thereof in particular lay down that even if the same issue in respect of the same assessee, for other assessment years is involved, the Department should not file appeal, if the tax effect is less than Rs.4 lakhs. In other words, even if the question of law is of recurring nature, the revenue is not expected to file appeals in such cases, if the tax impact is less than the monetary limit fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Board has also issued a Circular on June 5, 2007, directing the Department to examine all appeals pending before the court on a case to case basis with further direction to withdraw cases wherein the criteria of monetary limit as per the prevailing instruction are not satisfied, unless the question of law involved or raised in appeal or referred to the High Court for opinion is of a recurring nature required to be settled by the higher court. This circular makes it clear that on the date of issuance of the Circular, prevailing instructions fixing monetary limit will hold good even for pending cases. The circular dated M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etary limit is enhanced. If only the instruction No. 3/11 had been made applicable to the pending cases also, as laid down in the National Litigation Policy, the object of the policy would have been fulfilled. One of the ways of giving effect to the said policy is to make that instruction applicable retrospectively to all pending appeals as on the date of the circular. It would substantially serve the object of the policy. 25. It is in this context, the question arises, when the instruction expressly states that benefit of the said policy is prospective, still can the Courts place a construction on such instruction so as to make it retrospective. In this context, the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd., [2006] 204 ELT 517 (SC) dealing with the question how a beneficial circular is to be construed, has approached this question in the following manner. At paragraph 13 of the judgment, it is stated that the learned Counsel further submitted that the circular being oppressive and against the respondent, has to apply only prospectively and cannot be applied retrospectively. In other words, a beneficial circular has to be applied prospectively. Thus, whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ork. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that it is settled law that any notification issued under this fiscal legislation granting exemption from payment of tax has to be construed strictly. Any Circulars/Instructions issued conferring benefit on the assessees who are still to come to Court and who already inside the Court, at any rate, if such a benefit is given to pending matters, it would be only in the nature of one time settlement, which most of the financial institutions through out the country extend to defaulters who have borrowed money and who refuses to pay the same. 29. It is also not out of place to mention-herein that the Parliament wanted to grant statutory recognition to these Orders/Instructions/Circulars, issued by the Department from time to time retrospectively to take care to protect the interest of the Revenue by introducing sub-section (2) and (3) in Section 268-A of the Act. This benefit conferred on these assessees would be only in the nature of one time settlement because if the same issue arises for consideration in the subsequent years and the tax effect is more than Rs. 10 lakhs, it is not open to them to plead that either the department....