TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onetary limits for preferring the Appeal, or pursuing the pending Appeals by the Revenue, if the tax effect is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Director of Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. M/s. S.R.M.B. Diary Farming (P) Ltd., reported in [(2018) 4 9 (SC)]. It is pointed out that, the tax effect in the present Appeal would be only Rs. 3,50,000/-, and the monetary limit is only Rs. 9,00,000/- far below Rs. 20,00,000/-, the monetary limit fixed in Circular No.21 of 2015, dated 10.12.2015. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the Appeal is liable to be rejected. 4. Mr. T.Ravikumar, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue has placed before this Court a compilation consisting of Circulars/Instructions and Judgments on this issue and pyramids his argument by referring to Circular/Instruction one by one. 4.1) By referring to the Instruction No.1979 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), dated 27.03.2000, it is submitted that the monetary limit was fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/- for filing Appeals under Section 260-A of the Act, subject to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt, in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur Vs. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries, reported in [(2008) 13 SCC 1], for the proposition that, Circulars and Instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) are, no doubt, binding in law on the Authorities under the respective statutes, but, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court, or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the Court to direct that the Circular should be given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, or the High Court. 4.5) Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Commissioner of Income Tax III, Ludhiana Vs. Varindera Construction Co. Baghapurana, reported in [(2011) 331 ITR 449 (P & H)], wherein, Instruction No.5 of 2008, dated 15.05.2008, was dealt with, and, it was held that, the Circular, laying down monetary limit controls the filing of the Appeals and not their hearing. 4.6) Further, the learned Senior Standing Counsel referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Century Par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest and a clarity be obtained in view of the impact of this issue on pending cases before the High Courts as well as the cases which have been disposed of by various High Courts by applying the Circular of 2011 to pending litigations. In our view the matter has been squarely put to rest taking further care of the interest of the Revenue by the order passed by the three Judges Bench of this Court in Surya Herbal Ltd. case (supra), which had put two caveats even to the retrospective application of the Circular. The subsequent orders have been passed by the two Judges Bench without those orders being brought to the notice of the Court, a duty which was cast on the Department to have done so to avoid the ambiguity which has arisen. Thus, the said view of the three Judges Bench would hold water and the Circular would apply even to pending matters but subject to the two caveats provided in Surya Herbal Ltd. case (supra)." 8. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee, the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Surya Herbal Ltd. case (supra), which was followed by the Hon'ble two Judges Bench....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Supreme Court, in Surya Herbal Ltd. case (supra), the Circular issued in the year, 2015 will apply to all the pending Appeals. It appears that, despite Circular beings issued and more particularly, the Circular, dated 10.12.2015, appeals have been filed by the Revenue and when this came to the notice of the CBDT, Circular No.5 of 2017 dated 23.01.2017 was issued and the operative portion of which is as follows :- "3. However, it has been noticed that para 8 (c) of Circular No.21/2015, regarding cases where addition made on account of Revenue Audit Objection is deleted, is being erroneously interpreted and appeals are being mechanically filed by the Department without proper examination of the case on merits. This is contrary to the instructions contained in Circular No.21/2015 and Circular No.8/2016. It is, therefore, clarified that the import and intent of para 8 of the Circular No.21/2015 is that even on issues mentioned in the said para, appeals against the adverse judgment should only be filed on merits. 4. Accordingly, henceforth, appeals should not be filed by the Department in violation of instructions mentioned above. Further, appeals that may have been filed in viol....