Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv v. Pirangut Springs Ltd.(Formerly Called T.C. Springs Ltd.)

Bombay HC23 Aug 2016ITXA/2436/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed Income Tax Appeals filed by the Commissioner against Assessing Officers for Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The proceedings were discontinued because the appellant withdrew the appeals, citing the monetary limit restrictions in Central Board Circular No. 21 of 2015.

What did the court decide?

Both Income Tax Appeals (Nos. 2484 of 2011 and 2436 of 2011) were dismissed as withdrawn by the appellant.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv Vs Pirangut Springs… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

2484-11-itxa-c=.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2484 OF 2011 WITH

¶4

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2436 OF 2011

¶5

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Pune

¶6

.. Appellant

¶7

v/s.

¶8

Pirangut Springs Ltd. (formerly called T.C. Springs Ltd.)

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Mr. Vipul Bajpayee for the appellant Mr. Sameer Dalal for the respondent

¶11

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & S.C. GUPTE, J.J.

¶12

DATED : 23^rd AUGUST, 2016.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

The Income Tax Appeal No.2436 of 2011 is not on board. Mentioned. At the request of the Counsel, Income Tax Appeal No.2436 of 2011 is taken up for hearing along with Income Tax Appeal No.2484 of 2011, which is on board today.

¶15

These Appeals relate to Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2003-04 respectively. Both these appeals arise from a common impugned order of the Tribunal dated 13^th May, 2011 disposing of these appeals for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05.

1 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

2484-11-itxa-c=.doc

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 is invited to paragraphs 3, 5 and 10 therein which read as under:-

¶20

“3:- Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases 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. The Assessing Officer shall calculate the tax effect separately for every assessment year in respect of the disputed issues in the case of every assessee. If, in the case of an assessee, the disputed issues arise in more than one assessment year, appeal, can be filed in respect of such assessment year or years in which the tax effect in respect of the disputed issues exceeds the monetary limit specified in para 3. No appeal shall be filed in respect of an assessment year or years in which the tax effect is less than the monetary limit specified in para 3. In other words, henceforth, appeals can be filed only with reference to the tax effect in the relevant assessment year. 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

2 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

2484-11-itxa-c=.doc

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.”

¶28

“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.”

¶29

In the present cases, the tax effect as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the each of the two Appeal Memos is as under :-

¶30

Appeal No.	Assessment Year	Amount (Tax effect)
2484 of 2011	2004-05	Rs. 11.82 lakhs
2436 of 2011	2003-04	Rs.9.33 lakhs

¶31

Consequently, these appeal are not hit by clause 5 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes' Circular No.21/2015 dated 10^th December, 2015. As none of the two appeals have a tax effect of Rs.20 lakhs or more, Mr. Bajpayee, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue seeks liberty to withdraw these appeals.

¶32

Accordingly, both the Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn .

¶33

Refund of Court Fees, as per Rules.

¶34

(S.C. GUPTE, J.)

¶35

3 of 3

¶36

Uday S. Jagtap

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv v. Pirangut Springs Ltd.(Formerly Called T.C. Springs Ltd.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv v. Pirangut Springs Ltd.(Formerly Called T.C. Springs Ltd.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fthe C.I.T.City-Viii,Mumbai. Vs M/S.Colourtronic Film Lab

Srestha Arts and Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Director of Income Tax (OSD)-2(3)

Shri. Damodar Badrinarayan Bhandari and Anr. Vs the Director General of Income-Tax (Investigation) and Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax -1 Pune Vs Chetan Vithal Tupe

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs Dy. Cit Rg.-3(3), Mumbai and Another

M/S.Bharat Forge Ltd. Vs the C.I.T.Pune.