The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 7 Mumbai v. Rashiklal And Co Pvt Ltd
2343-09-itxa=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2343 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-7 .. Appellant v/s.
M/s. Rasiklal & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
..Respondent Mr. Abhay Ahuja for the appellant Ms. Rutuja Pawar i/b S.C. Tiwari for the respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J.
DATED : 28th MARCH, 2016.
P.C.
1.
This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 1999-2000. 2.
Mr. Ahuja, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue invited our attention to Circular No.21 of 2015 issued by the Central Board for Direct Tax dated 10th December, 2015. In particular, our attention invited to paragraphs 3 and 10 therein which read as under:- "3:- Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:- Uday S. Jagtap
2343-09-itxa=.doc S. No.
Appeals in Income Tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs.) Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- Before High Court 20,00,000/- Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/- 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."
"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 Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed.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."
3.
In the present case, the tax effect is Rs. 5.39 lakhs as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the Appeal Memo.
4.
In view of the above, Mr. Ahuja, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue does not press the present Appeal. 5.
Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed, as not pressed. 6.
Refund of Court Fees, as per Rules.
(A.K. MENON, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) Uday S. Jagtap