2011 (7) TMI 1249

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In short, the controversy arose in following factual background. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee claimed to have suffered loss in the assessment year in question. The Assessing Officer, however, disallowed the claim made by the assessee. Issue ultimately, reached the Tribunal in appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal holding it as not maintainable on the ground that in either case assessee had suffered loss and in that view of the matter, CBDT's circulars providing monetary limit for filing further appeal would render the Revenue's appeal not competent. 3. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that that the notional tax was higher than the limit prescribed by the Board's....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore 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 ₹ 1,00,000/-, ₹ 2,00,000/- and ₹ 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 preceding and succeeding circulars. We must, therefore, understand this term in the context of the intention of the Board in limiting the Tax Appeals....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r 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 circular itself. In other words unless and until the appeal is found to be opposed to the directives issued by the Board in it....