9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions issued by the CBDT from time to time. (i) Instruction No. 1328 dated 5-4-1980. (ii) Instruction No. 1573 dated 7-12-1984. (iii) Instruction No. 1612 dated 6-4-1985. (iv) Instruction No. 1777 dated 4-11-1987. (v) Instruction No. 1903 dated 28-10-1992. (vi) Instruction No. 1979 dated 27-3-2000. (vii) Instruction No. 1985 dated 29-6-2000. 3. Taking us through the instructions issued by the CBDT from time to time, learned DR submitted that the first instruction was issued by the CBDT prescribing monetary limit of Rs. 5,000 in respect of Income-tax appeals and Rs. 2,000 in respect of the appeals under other direct taxes and further an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal should not be filed unless the tax effect is in excess of the monetary limit prescribed since the main objective was to reduce the litigation and also the costs involved therein. Instruction No. 1612 deals with enhancement of the monetary limits prescribed in Instruction No. 1328. The monetary limits before the Appellate Tribunal were changed to Rs. 10,000 for income-tax and Rs. 5,000 for other direct taxes. Learned DR submits that CBDT always provided for separate monetary limits in respect of the departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invited to Board's Instruction No. 1903 dated 28th October, 1992 and Instruction No. 1777 dated 4th November, 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 here under:- (Tax effect) (i) Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal (in income-tax matters) Rs. 1,00,000. (ii) Appeal under section 260A/reference under section 256(2) before the High Court Rs. 2,00,000 (iii) Appeal in the Supreme Court Rs. 5,00,000. 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." This contended that the Board's Instruction Nos. 1903 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITO to follow the Instructions issued by the CBDT under section 119 of the Act and the departmental authorities should not choose to ignore the guidelines and spend their time, talent and energy on inconsequential matters. In short, the case of the learned counsel is that though the circular of CBDT is not binding on the appellate authorities, it can direct the Officers to follow the instructions, being issued in exercise of powers under section 119 of the Act, and thus the Tribunal is competent to dismiss the appeals as un-admitted. With regard to the observation 'each case taken singly' in Instruction No. 1979, the learned counsel stated in the written submissions as under:- "It is humbly submitted that Instruction No. 1979 clearly stipulated that the new monetary limits would apply with reference to "each case taken singly". It is further clarified that in group cases, each case should individually satisfy the new monetary limits. It is further clarified that the working out of monetary limits will therefore not take into consideration the cumulative revenue effect as envisaged in Board's earlier instruction referred above. Each case taken 'singly' clearly mean each assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present only unproductive assets are sought to be brought under tax net under the Wealth-tax Act and also due to enhancement of basic exemption limit, there would be very few cases where the tax effect in Wealth-tax appeals would exceed Rs. 1 lakh. It was therefore submitted that the Board might have, under peculiar circumstances, thought fit not to enhance the monetary limit in respect of the departmental appeals filed under the Wealth-tax Act. As directed by the Bench, the D/R filed a copy of instruction No. 1569 dated 3-7-1984 wherein the Board has taken a policy decision of not filing appeals in respect of matters concerning Rule IBB if the tax effect is less than Rs. 20,000. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. In our considered opinion, the Instruction No. 1979 dated 27-3-2000 has not made out a distinction between the income-tax matters and the appeals arising under other direct taxes in so far as taking into consideration the tax effect for filing the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. Though the aforementioned instruction is clear in this regard, since the learned DR has raised an issue that the monetary limits fixed under Inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the other guidelines as laid down in Board's instruction No. 1777 for computing the tax effect etc., will continue to be applicable. In other words, even in the year 1992, the CBDT has made a clear demarcation, vis-a-vis tax effect, between the appeals to be filed under Income-tax Act and the appeals under other direct taxes. 9. However, a clear departure is made while issuing instruction No. 1979 dated 27-3-2000 wherein the earlier instruction with regard to the monetary limits were specifically withdrawn which is clear from paras 1 and 2 of Instruction which are extracted below. "Reference is invited to Board's Instruction No. 1903 dated 28th October, 1992 and Instruction No. 1777 dated 4th November, 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 here under:- (Tax effect) (i) Appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the year 2000 for entering into litigation. In other words, the cost of filing the appeal i.e., preparation and supervision in the process of filing the appeals by various offices, appearance by the Standing counsels or the departmental officials, would involve higher cost in the present days and the CBDT would have certainly taken all these factors into consideration in enhancing the monetary limits to Rs. 1 lakh and made it uniform in respect of the appeals under direct taxes. 10. The learned DR stressed upon the 'clarification' issued vide Instruction No. 1985 dated 29-6-2000 to submit that in respect of appeals which involve identical issue in various years, the monetary limit prescribed in Instruction No. 1979 would apply taking together the assessment years for which the appeals were filed. It is necessary to bear in mind that an expression which lacks clarity requires clarification but, in present case, the policy decision taken by the CBDT vide Instruction No. 1979 being very specific and explicit, it may not be proper to give a different view on the matter in the garb of clarification. If the CBDT is of the view that the earlier instructions contained an unintended er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
