Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax -Ii Pune v. Shri C.P. Mohandas

Bombay HC11 Mar 2016ITXA/1506/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two Income Tax Appeals filed by the Revenue which were not pressed before the Bench because their respective tax effects fell below the Rs. 20,00,000 monetary limit prescribed in Circular No. 21 of 2015.

What did the court decide?

The Income Tax Appeals were dismissed as the Revenue did not press them before the Court. Court fees were refunded as per rules.

The Commissioner of Income Tax -Ii Pune Vs Shri C.P. Mohandas — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1506-13-itxa-c=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1506 OF 2013 WITH

¶4

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1828 OF 2013

¶5

The Commissioner of Income-Tax-II Pune

.. Appellant

v/s.

Shri C.P. Mohandas

..Respondent

Mr. Vipul Bajpayee for the appellant Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar for the respondent

¶11

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.J.

¶12

DATED : 11^th MARCH, 2016.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Both the Appeals relate to Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2003-04 respectively. The appeals have been filed by the Revenue from a common impugned order dated 10.09.2012 dismissing the appeals for the A.Y. 2004-05 and A.Y. 2003-04.

¶15

Mr. Bajpayee, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue invited our attention to Circular No.21 of 2015 issued by the Central Board for Direct Tax dated 10^th December, 2015. In particular, our attention invited to paragraphs 3, 5 and 10 therein which read as under:-

¶16

“3:- Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases

1 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

1506-13-itxa-c=.doc

where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:-

¶21

Sr.	Appeals in Income Tax matters	Monetary Limit
No.		(in Rs.)
1	Before Appellate Tribunal	10,00,000/-
2	Before High Court	20,00,000/-
3	Before Supreme Court	25,00,000/-

¶22

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.”

¶23

“5. ….....….. However, in case of a composite order of any High Court or appellate authority, which involves more than one assessment year and common issues in more than one assessment year, appeal shall be filed in respect of all such assessment years even if the 'tax effect' is less than the prescribed monetary limits in any of the year(s), if it is decided to file appeal in respect of the year(s) in which 'tax effect' exceeds the monetary limit prescribed. In case where a composite order / judgment involves more than one assessee, each assessee shall be dealt with separately.”

¶24

“10:- This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/ Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/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.”

¶25

In the present cases, the tax effect as mentioned in paragraph 12 of the each of the two Appeal Memos is as under :-

2 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

1506-13-itxa-c=.doc

Appeal No.	Assessment Year	Amount (Tax effect)
1506 of 2013	2004-05	13.77 lakhs
1828 of 2013	2003-04	2.23 lakhs

¶30

As none of the two appeals have a tax effect of Rs.20,00,000/- or more, Mr. Bajpayee, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue does not press any of the two Appeals.

¶31

Accordingly, both the Appeals are dismissed, as not pressed.

¶32

Refund of Court Fees, as per Rules.

¶33

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶34

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶35

3 of 3

¶36

Uday S. Jagtap

The Commissioner of Income Tax -Ii Pune v. Shri C.P. Mohandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax -Ii Pune v. Shri C.P. Mohandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju Avinash Wardekar Vs the Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1)

The Ci.T.B.C-I. Vs M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Cancer Patients Aid Society Vs the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) and 2 Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Ii, Pune Vs Shri Chandan Shewani

The Commissioner of Income Tax Ii, Pune Vs Shri Chandan Shewani

General Electoral Trust Vs Income Tax Officer 20(1)(2) and 3 Ors.