TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The CIT(A) erred in presuming that requirements of Rule 2BA of I.T. Rules, 1962 have been met ignoring the e-circular of the SBI, as well as the Board'sInstruction No. 200/34/2009-IT.I dated 6.10.2009 wherein, it is clearly mentioned that the scheme framed by the State Bank of Patiala and State Bank of India does not lay out eligibility for deduction under section 10(10C). 2. After going through the grounds of appeal we, at the outset, pointed to the ld. DR that since the tax effect in this appeal is below the prescribed monetary limit for filing of appeal before ITAT therefore the appeal must be dismissed in view of instruction no. 5/2014 issued by CBDT on 10.7.2014 revising the monetary limit for filing of appeal before ITAT fixing the tax effect limit of Rs. 4 lacs. The appeal is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine. The ld. DR before us vehemently contended that this instruction is not applicable to the appeal which has been filed prior to 10.7.2014. The only issue now remains before us is whether this appeal of the revenue which is below the prescribed limit of tax effect in view of the board instruction no. 5/2014 issued on 10.7.2014 revising the monetary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 9, 10, 11, 14 and 17 as under: "9. As stated earlier, the Income Tax Act was amended and Section 268A has been introduced on the Statute book with retrospective effect. Section 268A carves out an exception for filing of appeals and References under Section 260 A of the Act. The legislature has prescribed that the CBDT is empowered to issue circulars and instructions from time to time, with regard to filing of appeals depending on the tax effect involved. Thereafter, in 2008, CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2008 dated 15th May, 2008 was issued. This Court in the case of "Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) reported in "(2010) 229 CTR (Bom) 77, interpreted the aforesaid Circular. The Circular was issued in supersession of all earlier instructions issued by the Board. The monetary limit was increased and appeals were to be filed under Section 260A, thereafter, only in cases where the tax effect exceeded Rs. 4 Lacs. Paragraph 11 of that instruction stipulated that it was applicable to appeals filed on or after 15th May, 2008. It was further provided that in cases, where appeals were filed before 15th May, 2008, they would be governed by the instructions on this s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he new CBDT instructions have been issued on 9th February, 2011, being Instruction no. 3 of 2011. The monetary limit has been raised again and clause 3 of the instructions provides that appeals shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits prescribed, henceforth. The monetary limits prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 260A before the High Court has been raised to Rs. 10 Lacs. This instruction is identical to the CBDT Instruction no. 5 of 2008. Clause 10 of this circular indicates that monetary limits would not apply to writ matters and direct tax matters other than income tax. It further provides that where the tax effect is not quantifiable, the Department should take a decision to file appeals on merits of each case. Clause 11, again provides that the instruction would apply to appeals filed on or after ....2011 and appeals filed before ...... 2011 would be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeals were filed. 11. In our opinion, when a similar clause has been interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in CIT vs. Madhukar Inamdar (Supra), the same principles must apply in the pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us view, considering the main objective of such instructions that to reduce the pending litigation, where the tax effect is considerable low or small, the appeal is not maintainable. The recent instruction revising the monetary limit to Rs. 4 lakh for filing appeal before ITAT on income tax matters, as issued vide Instruction No.5/2014 FNo279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt) dated 10th July, 2014 will apply to pending appeals also for the reason that the same is exactly identical to earlier instructions. The relevant circular issued by CBDT reads as under: "Reference is invited to Board's instruction No 3/2011 dated 09/02/2011 wherein monetary limits and other conditions for filing departmental appeals (in income-tax matters) before Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court were specified. 2. In supersession of the above instruction, it has been decided by the Board that departmental appeals may be filed on merits before Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court keeping in view the monetary limits and conditions specified below. 3. Henceforth appeals shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:- S No. Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olves more than one assessee, each assessee shall be dealt with separately. 6. In a case where appeal before a Tribunal or a Court is not filed only on account of the tax effect being less than the monetary limit specified above, the Commissioner of Income-tax shall specifically record that "even though the decision is not acceptable, appeal is not being filed only on the consideration that the tax effect is less than the monetary limit specified in this instruction". Further, in such cases, there will be no presumption that the Income-tax Department has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issues. The Income-tax Department shall not be precluded from filing an appeal against the disputed issues in the case of the same assessee for any other assessment year, or in the case of any other assessee for the same or any other assessment year, if the tax effect exceeds the specified monetary limits. 7. In the past, a number of instances have come to the notice of the Bard, whereby an assessee has claimed relief from the Tribunal or the Court only on the ground that the Department has implicitly accepted the decision of the Tribunal or Court in the case of the assessee for any ....