Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax Ii, Pune v. Shri Chandan Shewani

Bombay HC11 Mar 2016ITXA/928/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two Income Tax Appeals filed by the Revenue. The appeals were not pressed by the learned counsel because the tax effect in both cases fell below the monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000 specified in Circular No.21 of 2015 under which appeals before the High Court were not to be filed if the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Both Income Tax Appeals were dismissed as they were not pressed by the learned counsel for the Revenue.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Ii, Pune Vs Shri Chandan Shewani — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

860-13-itxa-c=.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 860 OF 2013 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 928 OF 2013

¶4

The Commissioner of Income-Tax-II Pune

.. Appellant

Chandan Shewani

..Respondent

Mr. Vipul Bajpayee for the appellant

¶9

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA &

¶10

B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.J.

¶11

^th MARCH, 2016.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Both the Appeals relate to Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2002-03 respectively. The appeals have been filed by the Revenue from a common impugned order dated 29.08.2012 dismissing the appeals for the A.Y. 2003-04 and A.Y. 2002-03.

¶14

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:-

¶15

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

1 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

860-13-itxa-c=.doc

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

¶20

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/-

¶21

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.”

¶22

“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.”

¶23

“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.”

¶24

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

860-13-itxa-c=.doc

Appeal No.	Assessment Year	Amount (Tax effect)
806 of 2013	2003-04	12 lakhs
928 of 2013	2002-03	3.46 lakhs

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

Refund of Court Fees, as per Rules.

¶32

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶33

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶34

3 of 3

¶35

Uday S. Jagtap

The Commissioner of Income Tax Ii, Pune v. Shri Chandan Shewani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax Ii, Pune v. Shri Chandan Shewani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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

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

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