TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appeal by the Revenue, as the Revenue stake was below ₹ 10,00,000/- which factual position is not disputed. The mere existence of the audit objection for the present AY 2003-04 does not change the Revenue stake at all. 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. - Tax Case (Appeal) No.867 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2020 - HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY For Appellant : Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, Senior Stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng observation :- 3. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record. In this case, the return of Income tiled by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act' In short] on 05.02.2004. Subsequently, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 19.05.2006 and duly served on the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee in its letter dated 23.06.2006, stated that the original return already filed may be taken as one in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. In the same letter, the assessee asked reasons for reopening the assessment. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was also issued on 27.06.2006. After considering the submissions of the assessee and v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, it appears that the appeal was filed by the Revenue in the regular course and not on the basis of audit objection. Therefore, it is obvious that para 8 of Circular No.21 of 2015 issued by CBDT is not applicable. 6.Further, we find that against dismissal of the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Revenue in the case of DCIT v. Paragon Steels Pvt. Ltd. in M.P. No. 214/Mds/2016 [in I.T.A. No.887/Mds/2015] dated 03.03.2017 , the Revenue preferred further appeal before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in T.C.A. No. 579 of 2017. While dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as under: 3. The said miscellaneous petition was filed by the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow Rs.One Crore. The depreciation in question on M.S. Rolls was only Rs. ₹ 5,25,960/-. Therefore, the tax effect, on account of the said alleged audit objection, was definitely less than Rs. One crore or for that matter, below ₹ 10,00,000/- before the learned Tribunal in its appeal pending before it. 5. The learned Counsel for the Revenue, Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, appearing for the Tribunal as well before this Court, could not produce any such audit objection for perusal of the Tribunal/ this court. The learned Counsel for the Appellant Revenue Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, only submitted that the Office File Noting provided to him shows that the appeal was preferred before the learned Tribunal on the basis of some audit objection. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
