High Court Of Bombay
CIT vs. Camco Colour Co.
Section 260A
Asst. Year 1990-91
V.C. Daga & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 765 of 2000
26th November, 2001
Counsel Appeared
R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetly & B.M. Chatterjee i/b H.D. Rathod, for the Appellant : A.K. Jasani, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
V.C. DAGA, J. :
This appeal is filed under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (“Act” for short), raising a question with respect to the claim for deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I of the Act which was allowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal” for short) vide its judgment dt. 28th Dec., 1999, for the asst. yr. 1990-91.
2. At the outset. Shri Jasani, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that considering the tax effect, this is not a fit case wherein the Court should entertain appeal for consideration. Mr. Jasani, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of CWT vs. Executors of Late D.T. Udeshi (1992) 101 CTR (Bom) 290 : (1991) 189 ITR 319 (Bom) : TC 67R.840 wherein the appeal was disposed of on this count alone. He pointed out that the tax effect, if at all the Revenue succeeds, is going to be in the sum of Rs. 46,410 for the asst. yr. 1990-91. He took us through the Instruction No. 1979 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT” for short) vide Circular F. No. 279/126/98-ITJ dt. 27th March, 2000, which reads as under : “INSTRUCTION NO. 1979 F. No. 279/126/98-ITJ Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi dated the 27th March, 2000 To All Chief Commissioners of Income-tax/Directors General of Income-tax. Sir, Sub : Revising Monetary limits for filing Departmental appeals/ references before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court. Measures for reducing litigation-regarding Reference is invited to Board’s Instructions No. 1903, dt. 28th Oct., 1992, and Instruction No. 1777, dt. 4th Nov., 1987, wherein monetary limits of Rs. 25,000 for Departmental appeals (in income-tax matters) before the Appellate Tribunal, Rs. 50,000 for filing reference to the High Court and Rs. 1,50,000 for filing appeal to the Supreme Court were laid down.
2. In supersession of the above instruction, it has now been decided by the Board that appeals will be filed only in cases where the tax effect exceeds the revised monetary limits given hereunder : (Tax effect) 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 consideration the cumulative revenue effect as envisaged in Board’s earlier instruction referred to above.
3. Adverse judgments relating to the following should be contested irrespective of revenue effect : (i) Where Revenue audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department. (ii) Where Board’s order, notification, instruction or circular is the subject-matter of an adverse order. (iii) Where prosecution proceedings are contemplated against the assessee. (iv) Where the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act are under challenge.
4. Special Leave Petitions under Art. 136 of the Constitution are filed before the Supreme Court only in consultation with Ministry of Law. Therefore, where the Chief CIT decides to contest an adverse judgment by filing special leave petition before the Supreme Court, they should send the proposal to the Board for further processing. These instructions will apply to litigation under other direct taxes also e.g., wealth-tax, gift-tax, estate duty, etc. These monetary limits will not apply to writ matters. This instruction will come into effect from 1st April, 2000. Sd/ (Anuradha Goyal) Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of India”
The issue in the present case being one of some potential general significance in relation to the policy decision taken by the Board not to raise questions of law where the effect is less than the amount prescribed in the instructions issued by the CBDT with a view to reduce litigations before the High Courts and the Supreme Court, we propose to dispose of this appeal on this short contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent without examining the merits of the question of law sought to be raised in this appeal.
The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon decision in Navnit Lal C. Javeri vs. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) : TC 69R.265, Ellerman Lines vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 71 : (1971) 82 ITR 913 (SC) : TC 69R.265 and K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) : TC 69R.266 to contend that the circular issued by the CBDT is binding on all the officers and Commissioners and in terms of which he sought to examine the question of necessity of filing of present appeal.
It appears that despite about circular, the Revenue has chosen to file present appeal knowing fully well that the corridors of the Courts are flooded with pending litigations. The presentation of this appeal is quite contrary to the instruction issued in the circular which is binding on the Revenue.
In the above view of the matter, considering the instructions issued by the CBDT, we are satisfied that the Board has taken policy decision not to file appeal in a type of case in hand and the same is binding on Revenue (appellant herein). In the result, we dismiss this appeal on this count in limine with no order as to costs.
[Citation : 254 ITR 565]
