TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cepted even though it was beyond the limit prescribed under Section 139 (1) ? 2. Whether the Tribunal could allow the appeal without assigning any reason by mere recording the submissions of the appellant and respondent ? In M.A.I.T.22 of 2005, following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:- 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon. ITAT was justified in law in deleting the levy of penalty u/s 27(1)(a) on the grounds that returns filed on these years were accepted even though it was beyond the limit prescribed under Section 139 (1) ? 3. Whether the Tribunal could allow the appeal without assigning any reason by mere recording the submissions of the appellant and respondent ? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.1903, dated 28th October, 1992, (See Clarification Five) and Instruction No.1777, dated 4th November 1987, (See Clarification Five) wherein monetary limits of Rs.25,000 for Departmental appeals (in income-tax matters) before the Appellate Tribunal, Rs.50,000 for filing reference to the High Court and Rs.1,50,000 for filing appeal to the Supreme Court were laid down. 2. In supersession of the above instruction, it has now been decided by the Board that appeals will be filed only in cases where the tax effect exceeds the revised monetary limits given hereunder: (Tax effect) Rs. (i) Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal (in income-tax matters) 1,00,000 (ii) Appeal under Section 260A/reference under Section 256(2) be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il 1, 2000. Instruction : No 1979 [F.No.279/126/98-IT], dated 27-3-2000. [See Asstt. CIT v. Nimeshchandra v. Vashi (ITA No.2794/Ahd./2003, dated 6-1-2005]. A Division Bench of this Court in Suresh Chand Goyal (supra) has considered this aspect and held thus :- "The another question raised by learned counsel for the respondent is about the filing of appeal contrary to the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, according to which, the appeal under section 260A of the Income-Tax Act on the tax effect of less than Rs. 2 lakhs should not be filed by the Revenue and placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Camco Colour Co. [2002]254 ITR 565]. Learned counsel for the respondent also re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in paragraph 6 expressed the view as under (page 520): '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 Department has 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 less than Rs. 2 lakhs. The same policy for old mattes needs to be adopted by the Department. In our view, the Board's circular dated March 27, 2000, is very much applicable even to the old references which are still undecided. The department is not justified in procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard 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. 6. This Court can very well take judicial notice of the fact that by passage of time money value has gone down, cost of litigation expenses has gone up, the assessees on the file of the departments have increased; consequently, burden on the department has also increased to a tremendous extent. The corridors of the superior courts are chocked with huge pendency of cases. In this view of the matter, the Board has rightly taken ....