9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before it on the ground of CBDT Circular No.21/2015, dated 10 December 2015 as the tax effect involved in the present case was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-. 2. The Revenue seems to have filed a miscellaneous application before the learned Tribunal against the said order of dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn, urging the learned Tribunal that since the reassessment for AY 2003-04 was made in the case of the Assessee based on some audit objection raised by the Audit party of the Income Tax Department, that the Assessee was wrongly allowed 100% depreciation on MS Rolls replaced by it in the machines used by the Assessee and it was not correct according to audit party. Therefore, the exception in the said CBDT Circular No.21/2015, for withdr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in the assessment order that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of audit objection. 4. Admittedly, the tax effect in the original appeal filed by the Revenue was less than the monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT to file an appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal as per the CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, which was accepted by the Id. DR. Thus, the Tribunal held that the Revenue authorities are precluded from filing the appeal before the Tribunal since the tax effect was less than Rs. 10,00,000/- and accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as un-admitted. 5. However, the Revenue has filed the present petition to recall the order of the Tribunal dated 29.07.2016 and adjudicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of the audit objections. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that paragraph 8 of Circular No.21/2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is not applicable and accordingly, the said miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue was rejected. The Tribunal, after having considered the factual position and verified the original files, has taken a decision in the matter and we find no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, as the entire finding is factual. 4. For the above reasons, the above tax case appeal is dismissed. In view of the identical facts and circumstances and respectfully following the above decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al or before this Court for perusal. Therefore, we cannot appreciate the submission of the learned Counsel for the Revenue Mr.J.Narayanaswamy that the matter, even at this stage, should be remitted back to the learned Tribunal for deciding the appeal on merits. 7. The Appellant Revenue should appreciate and understand the letter and spirit of the CBDT Circular in the litigation policy issued by it, to withdraw, and not to press the appeal on merits, before the concerned forums viz. Tribunal or High Court, if the Revenue stake or tax effect is less than the prescribed limit. Admittedly, when the tax effect on the said issue was below the prescribed limit, we fail to understand how the existence of the audit objection in the present case, ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
