TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....') who is close associate of B.B. Swamy and seized gold, cash, silverware, other valuables and incriminating documents. During the assessment year 1992-93, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had sold plots bearing Nos.9, 10 and 11, (acquired on 25.02.1983, 31.03.1983 and 08.03.1983 respectively, all situated at Belgaum) and made capital gains on the sale of those plots. She challenged the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) contending that the plots sold by her were belonged to B.B. Swamy and the sale consideration was transferred to him and she has not made any capital gains on account of sale of the plots. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who confirmed the order of the Assessing officer holding that the assessee made capital gains and it has to be assessed in her hands, but directed the Assessing Officer to give credit of Rs. 10,00,000/- seized in the hands of B.B. Swamy to the assessee as against her tax liability. Hence, the Assessing Officer filed an application before the C.I.T (Appeals) seeking withdrawal of the direction in so far as giving credit of the amount seized in the h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of B.B. Swamy to the case of assessee and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also erred in confirming the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). He submits that the Instruction issued by Board dated 09.02.2001 is prospective in effect and not retrospective and the assessee cannot take advantage of the Instruction and decision of this court made in re Ranka and Ranka (reported in 2012(73) Kar.L.J.30 (HC) (DB) holding that the instruction No3, issued by the Board is applicable to the pending cases filed prior to 09.02.2011 has been challenged before the Apex Court. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Orders. He submits that in view of the Instruction dated 09.02.2011 issued by the Board as the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit, viz., Rs. 10,00,000/- the revenue should not have filed the appeal under Section 260-A of the Act. He further submits that the impugned Order of the commissioner of IT (Appeals) is in relation to adjusting a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- seized in the case of B.B. Swamy was ordered to be adjusted towards the tax liability of the assessee. He rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sec.116 of the Act). This is the highest Executive Authority for administering the direct tax. It controls all the Income Tax authorities that are appointed under the Income Tax Act. It is empowered to issue orders and directions to all the officers employed in the department and to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act (vide Sec 119 and 268A of the Act). Taxpayers desire to reduce their tax liability to the minimum. Whereas the desire of the Government is to increase the revenue through direct taxes and that has resulted in making the tax problems very complicated and often controversial. 12. Various High Courts namely Madras (see Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kodanad Tea Estates Company -reported in [2005] 275 ITR 244 (mad), Kerala (see Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. John L.Chackola- reported in [2011] 337 ITR 385 (Ker) and Chattisgarh (see Commissioner of Income Tax v. Navabhrat Explosives Company Private Limited -reported in [2011] 337 ITR 515 (Chattisgarh), have held that the Boards Instruction dated 15.05.2008 is prospective. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Varindera Construction Company - reported in [2011] 331 ITR 449 (P and H), High Court of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cy of any litigation in any Court does not exceed three years. The instruction issued by the Board itself clarifies that the instruction will apply to appeals filed on or after February 9th 2011 and the cases where appeals have been filed before 09.02.2011 will be governed by the instruction on the subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed (vide Clause 11 of the Instruction No.3dated 09.02.2011). 15. When Clause 11 of the instruction No.3/11 dated 09.02.2011 issued by the Board, specifically says that it will be applicable to the cases filed on or after 9.2.2011, the courts holding that it is applicable to the pending cases is against the provision under Section 268A of the Act, Public Interest and the Public Policy. Therefore, we uphold the contention of the revenue that the Instruction No.3 dated 09.02.2011 has no retrospective effect and the appeal filed by the revenue is maintainable. Accordingly, we answer the 1st substantial question of law, in the negative in favour of the Revenue. Question No.(ii) 16. With regard to the 2nd substantial question of law is concerned, it is necessary to refer to section 132B of the Act, which deals with regard to dispo....