TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill be pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the said Circular No. 21 / 2015 dated 10.12.2015 :- 3. Henceforth, appeals / SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:- S.No. Appeals in Income Tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 2 Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3 Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case. 4. For this purpose, "tax effect" means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issues against which appeal is intended to be filed (hereinafter referred to as 'disputed issues'). However, the tax will not include any interest thereon, except where chargeability of interest itself is in dispute. In case the chargeability of interest is the issue under dispute, the amount of intere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n / not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed. 4. We find that intention behind the Circular No.21/2015 dated 10-12- 2015 needs to be understood in the following perspective:- 5. On perusal of the Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and the materials available on record, we could not see whether the impugned case falls under any of the exceptions contemplated in the said Circular. We also find that the Circular makes it very clear that the revised monetary limits shall apply retrospectively to pending appeals also. We find that the Circular is binding on the tax authorities. This position has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd reported in 267 ITR 272 (SC) wherein their Lordships examined the earlier decisions of the Apex Court with regard to binding nature of the Circulars and laid down that when a Circular issued by the Board remains in operation then the revenue is bound by it and cannot be allowed to plead that it is not valid or that it is contrary to the terms of the statute. Hence we hold ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reduced the disallowances as made by the AO u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and confirmed the additions made on account of claim of remuneration and interest paid to partners and claim of loss on sale of assets. 11. Before the CIT-A the assessee raised a ground questioning the validity of notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act was not properly served on the assessee. The CIT-A observed that the assessee has raised this ground for the first time before him and could not produce any evidence to show that the service of said notice was not properly served on the assessee and held that the assessee is not entitled to raise any objection on the ground of improper/belated service of notice. Relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below:- 10. Ground No. 8 states that notice under section 143(2) was not served to the partner or authorized person within the specified date as provided in law. When the matter came up for hearing, it was stated that the notice under section 143(2) was served on 30.9.2009 purportedly upon some staff person. It was stated that, service was not to any authorized person. 10.1. As can be seen from the assessment order, the partner / authorized r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....143(2) of the Act, the assessment is to be declared as invalid. He referred page-1 to 3 of the paper book, which is an order sheet and stated that the AO claimed to have issued notice u/s. 143(2) for fixing the date of hearing on 23-11-09 and argued that such notice was served on a person by name Sh. M. Sankar who is neither authorized nor concerned person to receive on behalf of assesse and also referred to the copies of pay register and debit voucher of salary details for the FY's 2007-09 as provided in paper books, wherein he drew our attention that no such person by that name was ever worked or employed with the assessee and the said notice was not properly served on assessee as contemplated and required u/s. 143(2) of the Act and urged to quash the assessment order and as confirmed by the CIT-A. The Ld. AR further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT v Mahi Valley Hotels and Resorts [2006] 287 ITR 360 (Guj). 13. The Ld.DR submits that the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings and did not raise such ground questioning the validity of notice issued u/s. 143(2) before the AO. The assessee raised such ground before the CIT-A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nitiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b)of the Act was issued. Therefore, it goes to show that a person claiming to be representing the assessee as partner appeared before the AO for the first time on 10-12-2010 in response to notice issued u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act and it concluded that the service of notice u/sec 143(2) on 30-09-09 and issuance of notice thereafter u/sec 142(1) of the Act was not in the knowledge of the assessee and as rightly contended by the Ld.AR notice u/sec 143(2) of the Act was not properly served on the assessee. We also find that there is a gap of one year between issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) and appearance of partner representing Assessee before the AO. Therefore, the order sheets of assessment record as filed by the assessee by way of paper book suggests that the assessee was not appeared before the AO in response to notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act as it was not in the knowledge of Assessee. Therefore, we hold that the statutory notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act was not properly served on the assessee, which is mandatory as per section 143(2) of the Act. 15. With regard to the decision as relied on by the ld.AR of the assessee before....