2017 (4) TMI 773

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... : MR NITIN K MEHTA, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Present application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the applicant - Revenue requesting to condone delay of 68 days caused in preferring Tax Appeal against the impugned order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29.01.2016 passed in ITA No.383/Ahd/2011 for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Revenue. We have also perused the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was before the learned Tribunal. From the material on record it appears that the tax effect involved in the Appeal before the learned Tribunal for A.Y. 2000-01 was Rs. 4,50,716 only, which shall be less than the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT in it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot substantiated. It is required to be noted that the order passed by the learned CIT(A), which was before the learned Tribunal, was not a composite order passed by the learned CIT(A), but was an independent and separate order passed with respect to the Assessment Year 2000-01. As per the clause 5 of the Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015, no Appeal shall be filed in respect of an assessment ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ess than the prescribed monetary limits in any of the years. As observed herein in the present case, it is not a case of a composite order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was before the learned Tribunal. It was a separate and independent order passed by the learned CIT(A) with respect to each different assessment year, more particularly in the present case for A.Y. 2000-01. Under the circumstan....