9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sake of convenience, we will first take up the appeals directed by the revenue. 2. The common grounds raised by the revenue in all the three appeals read as under : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in quashing the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 148 of the IT Act, 1961. The ld.CIT(A) was not justified in holding that first notice of hearing was issued beyond the prescribed limit of 12 months from the end of the month of filing the 'return' to be counted from 14-5-1997 a date of which so called letter stating that the returns filed originally should be treated as returns filed in compliance to notice under section 148, when in fact no such letter was ever filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee and estimated by the Distt. Valuation Officer, in different years. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the appeal was filed. 5. Before the CIT(A), it was argued that the original returns for all the three years were filed alongwith audited accounts in which the cost of construction invested by the assessee was duly reflected. So the assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 was due to change of opinion. It is settled law that jurisdiction under section 148 cannot be assumed on mere change of opinion. It was also claimed that a reference under section 131(1)(d) could be made only if any proceedings in the case of the assessee were pending. On the date of issue of commission under section 131(1)(d), no proceedings against the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO. Thus, the computation of limitation period from the date of the assessee's letter was illegal. In his opinion, the return of income in response to notice under section 148 was never filed nor any letter from the assessee was ever received to the effect that the original return of income may be treated as return filed in response to notices under section 148 of the Act. On the other hand, ld.counsel of the assessee Shri B.K. Nema raised the preliminary objection to the effect that the appeals directed by the revenue were not maintainable. He stated that the tax effect involved in each of the three years was less than Rs. 1 lakh. All the three appeals have been filed by the revenue in the month of March 2001. The CBDT vide its instruction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding the cross objection, filed by the assessee, Shri Nema stated that in view of the relief granted by the CIT(A), he does not want to press the same. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the CBDT has issued instructions from time to time to the effect that where the tax effect involved in the appeals was less than a particular monetary limit, no appeals should be directed by the revenue. In the cases before us, the monetary limit fixed by the Board was Rs. 1 lakh. Various Benches of the ITAT including the Jurisdictional Bench have taken the view that if the tax effect involved in the revenue's appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed in the Board's Circular, such appeals were not maintainable. Concurring w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
