Madhya Pradesh High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bhopal vs Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Bhopal ... on 28 April, 2014
MAITA.No.65/2003
1
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Rameshchandra Shukla
28/04/2014
Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. As the quantum of revenue involved in the matter i.e. quantum of tax involved is less than `2 Lacs, in view of the departmental circular issued, the appeal is not maintainable.
For the assessment year 1987-88, similar question with regard to right of the Department to file an appeal, when a quantum of tax demanded is less than `2 Lacs, has been considered by various judgment of this Court.
In the order passed in the case of Ramkishore Nandishore (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court has taken note of the circular issued by the Department and after considering certain judgments rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suresh Chand Goyal (2008) ITR 277 (MP); and, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel & Company, (2009) 317 ITR 386 (MP), has decided the question in the following manner:
"The aforesaid judgment specifically lays down that any appeal, if tax effect less than `2 Lakhs, could not have been filed by the Department.
From the perusal of the instructions issued by the Board, we find that the Board had issued directions that the appeals will be filed only in cases where the tax effect exceeds `2 Lakhs in the matter of High Court of appeals u/s 260-A or MAITA.No.65/2003 2 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Rameshchandra Shukla Reference u/s 256(2). The aforesaid circular is binding on all the authorities under the Board including the appellant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur. The Board has taken this decision in continuation to earlier directions issued by the Board on 28.10.1992 where the monetary limit was `50,000/-. Now, in view of the changed circumstances, as directed by the Board by instruction dated 27.3.2000, it is apparent that the appeal or reference below `2 Lakhs, could not have been filed. The instructions of the Board are binding to all the authorities working under the Board including the appellant. This appeal which was filed on 10.1.2005 is fully covered by the instructions issued by the Board on 27.3.2000, and this appeal could not have been filed. The aforesaid position has been clarified by two Division Bench of this Court, in Suresh Chand and Ashok Manibhai (supra).
In the result, this appeal is found incompetent and is dismissed with no order as to costs."
In view of the aforesaid, we see no ground to interfere into the matter, as the quantum of tax liability is less than `2 Lacs and the Department had no right to file the appeal.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) (Anil Sharma)
Judge Judge
nd