2009 (4) TMI 818

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssee, the Assessing Officer arrived at the tax due at Rs. 960 and Rs. 300 respectively. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved against the order, the Revenue carried the matter on appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Without going into the merits of the case, the Tribunal dismissed the Departmental appeal in limine on the ground that the tax effect is less than Rs. 1 lakh by following the decisions in the case of CIT v. Camco Colour Co. [2002] 254 ITR 565 (Bom) and CWT v. S. Annamalai [2002] 258 ITR 675 (Mad). The Revenue filed a miscellaneous petition to review that order of the Tribunal co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ight in holding that allowing the Revenue' s miscellaneous petitions would amount to review of its own order when Instruction No. 1979, dated March 27, 2000, itself clearly specified that it was applicable only to appeals filed on or after April 1, 2000, and, therefore, there was a mistake apparent from record in the Tribunal' s order which had to be rectified ?" Heard the learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the order of the Tribunal. A issue similar to the issue in this case came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in the case of CWT v. S. Annamalai [2002] 258 ITR 675, wherein it was held that in order to reduce the litigation for filing Departmental appeals/references before the Income-tax Appellate Tribun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct or in the provision itself that a particular provision is subjected to or qualified by any other provision or the provision can be given effect to notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions by assigning overriding effect. Hence, the contention that notwithstanding the circular, which was issued under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, the appeal could be filed by the Revenue under section 260A has to be rejected for the reason that if the contention is accepted, one of the sections would become virtually otiose and that cannot be the intention of the law makers." Thus, following the long line of case law reported in CIT v. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. [2002] 258 ITR 300 (Raj), CIT v. P. S. T. S. Tiruvirathnam and Sons [2003] 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X