TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (12) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kh in each appeal i.e., the limit laid down by the CBDT in Instruction No. 1979, dt. 27th March, 2000. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cameo Colour Co. (2002) 173 CTR (Bom) 255 : (2002) 254 ITR 565 (Bom). He has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr. (2003) 184 CTR (SC) 450 : (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) to support his contention that the circular issued by the CBDT is binding upon the Revenue authorities. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. (2002) 178 CTR (Raj) 414 :....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd that appeals will be filed only in cases were the tax effect exceeds the revised monetary limits given hereunder: ------------------------------------------------------- (Tax effect) Rs. ------------------------------------------------------- (i) Appeal before the Tribunal (in income-tax matters) 1,00,000 (ii) Appeal under s. 260A/reference under s. 256(2) before 2,00,000 the High Court (iii) Appeal in the Supreme Court 5,00,000 ------------------------------------------------------- The new monetary limits would apply with reference to each case taken singly. In other words, in group cases, each case should individually satisfy the new monetary limits. The working out of monetary limits will, therefore, not take into considerati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were directed not to file the appeal before the Tribunal where the tax effect was below Rs. 25,000. The above monetary limit was further revised upward by Instruction No. 1979, dt. 27th March, 2000, and the officers were directed not to file the appeal to Tribunal where the tax effect is below Rs. 1 lakh. Thus, the CBDT since 1987 has not only taken a consistent approach of instructing its officers for not filing the appeal where the tax effect is below the monetary limit, such monetary limit is also revised upwards from time to time. The above circular was considered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Cameo Colour Co. and their Lordships held at p. 568 as under: "It appears that despite the above circular, the Revenue has chosen to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Court or an assessee, it is not open to the Revenue to raise a contention that is contrary to a binding circular by the Board. When a circular remains in operation, the Revenue is bound by it and cannot be allowed to plead that it is not valid nor that it is contrary to the terms of the statute. (2) Despite the decision of this Court, the Department cannot be permitted to take a stand contrary to the instructions issued by the Board. (3) A show-cause notice and demand contrary to existing circulars of the Board are ab initio bad. (4) It is not open to the Revenue to advance an argument or file an appeal contrary to the circulars." From the above, it is evident that the Hon'ble apex Court has laid down that it is not open to the Revenu....