Bombay High CourtTXA/150/2017disposed of

The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji., v. Candolim Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd.,

2018-10-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice N. M. Jamdar,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan2 pages

1 txas20,27,35,38-18,150-17-11-10-18 Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEALS NO.20, 27, 35, 38 OF 2018 & 150 OF 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax.

...... Appellant.

Versus.

Candolim Urban Co-operative Society Ltd.

...... Respondent.

Ms. Amira Abdul Razaq, Standing Counsel for the Appellant. Mr. S. R. Rivankar and Mr. Rama Rivankar, Advocates for the Respondent.

Coram : N.M. Jamdar & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.

Date : 11 October 2018.

P.C.:

In these Appeals, the tax effect shown by the AppellantRevenue is below 50.00 lakhs. In view of the CBDT Circular ₹ dated 11 July 2018, pursuant to the National Litigation Policy the Income Tax Department has to withdraw the Appeals where the tax effect is below 50.00 lakhs. The Circular also had given the date of ₹ 20 August 2018 to the Commissioner to take a decision. 2.

In view of this policy, the Tax Appeals where placed on the board on 28 August 2018, and 6 September 2018 to enable the

2 txas20,27,35,38-18,150-17-11-10-18 Revenue to take written instructions. In fact, we had suggested that they should form a team to examine the matters. 3.

The learned Standing Counsel states that no specific instructions have been received from the Appellant so far, as to whether these Appeals also fall in any of the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular. The tax effect in these Appeals is below the stipulated limit in the Circular. We had adjourned the matters from time to time along with several others and this entire exercise cannot be undertaken again and again. We dispose of these Appeals, giving liberty to the Appellant to seek revival of the Appeals, if upon examination it is found that the Appeals fall in one of the exceptions and, therefore need to be pursued inspite of the tax effect being below 50.00 lakhs. In view of the fact that the policy is to reduce ₹ the litigation, such a decision be taken within a period of six weeks. 4.

With the above observations, the Appeals are disposed of. 5.

We are also informed that a Public Interest Litigation is pending in the Supreme Court challenging the CBDT Circular dated 11 July 2018. The disposal of these Appeals is subject to the outcome of the said public interest litigation. Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.

N.M. Jamdar, J.