TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al filed by the Revenue without adjudicating the same on merits on the ground that since in the appeal, tax effect was below Rs.2 lakh, the Revenue could not have preferred the same in view of the instructions of the CBDT, thereby entitling the Appellate Tribunal not to decide the same on merits? [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that the notional tax effect in this case was more than the prescribed limit?" 2. Notional tax effect was in excess of Rs. 8 lakhs and, therefore notice for final disposal was issued to the respondent assessee, in response to which, learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.N. Soparkar appeared with learned advocate Mrs. Swati Soparkar for the respondent. 3. On having heard learned Senior....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecify that irrespective of the degree of divergence between the Assessing Officer and CIT merely because in either case the assessee is held to have suffered loss, appeal before the Tribunal would not be presented. Starting with circular dated 27.3.2000, we find that the said circular provided for limits for preferring appeals to the Tribunal, reference before the High Court and appeal before the Supreme Court as long as the tax effect exceeded Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively. Paragraph 3 of the said circular specified the categories where irrespective of the revenue effect, such appeals could be pursued. The term "tax effect" specified in circular dated 27.3.2000 is nowhere defined and explained in any of the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s negative. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that none of the circulars presented before us intended to bar the tax appeals even where potential tax effect would be enormous, simply because in the year in question, the assessee had earned negative income. 37. The issue can be looked from a slightly different angle. In absence of the Board's circulars issued, which now can be stated to be covered under Section 268A of the Act, there are no limitations on Revenue carrying the issue in appeal either before the appellate Tribunal, the High Court, the Supreme Court. To hold that a particular appeal is not maintainable by virtue of the limitations imposed by the Board in its circular, such limitation must be traced into cir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame in the subsequent circular dated 15.5.2008, would not mean that previously the Board desired that such appeals should be filtered out. 40. Reference to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mangalam Risinus (supra) or subsequent judgment in the case of Nanakram Jaysinghania (upra) would not persuade us to change our view. In the case of Mangalam Risinus (supra), the Delhi High Court simply affirmed the view of the Tribunal making following observations. "5. We are in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that even if the order of the Assessing Officer is upheld the tax recovery so far as the revenue is concerned would be nil. In the event the question has any impact on subsequent years, we leave it open to the reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cam much thereafter, and in view of the paragraph 11 thereof, has no applicability to the case. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and it was dismissed on November 30, 2007, as not maintainable. These instructions came much thereafter, and in view of paragraph 11 thereof, has no applicability to the case. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, therefore, rightly dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable. The present appeal preferred thus clearly is a misuse of the process of law and in spite of the aforesaid clear instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes itself, we fail to understand as to why this appeal is preferred when the appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal itself was not maintainable. In these circumstances, we dismiss....