The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 19, v. Smt.Veena Gope Shroff,

71-13-itxa=.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax -19, Mumbai .. Appellant v/s.

Smt. Veena Gope Shroff ..Respondent Mr. Abhay Ahuja for the appellant Mr. Atul Jasani i/b S.S. Shetty for respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S. KULKARNI, J.J.

DATED : 22nd DECEMBER, 2015.

P.C.

1.

This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2006-07. 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

71-13-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 Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed.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. 12.87 lakhs as mentioned in paragraph 10 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 dismissed, as not pressed. 6.

Refund of Court Fees, as per Rules.

(G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) Uday S. Jagtap