TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding of Circular No.5/2017 dated 23/01/2017 and Circular No.21/2015 and 08/2016 issued by CBDT, we find that if the case falls in any of the exceptions provided in the said Circulars, the said monetary limits prescribed for preferring the appeal would not be applicable. A plain reading of the aforesaid Circulars would result in such understanding only, which, in our considered opinion, is unambiguous. There is absolutely no need to interpret the veracity or eligibility of the Revenue to prefer appeal before this Tribunal at the time of Miscellaneous Application proceedings u/s. 254(2) of the Act where the scope of the tribunal is very limited We find that the ld. AR before us was only trying to question / challenge the very basis of Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Tribunal in ITA No.2338/Mum/2019 dated 21/08/2019 for A.Y.2010-11 on the ground that this Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the Revenue stating that the tax effect involved in the said appeal is less than the prescribed monetary limits of CBDT Circular, whereas the assessment in the instant case has been reopened on the basis of Revenue Audit Objection which had been accepted by the department and hence, the same would fall within the exception provided in para 2(c ) of the said Circular. 2. The ld. AR before us vehemently argued that even in the case where the Revenue Audit Objection has been accepted by the department and assessment is reopened by the ld. AO, the same might constitute good reason only for the purpose of reopeni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referring appeals by the Revenue before us. On a conjoint reading of Circular No.5/2017 dated 23/01/2017 and Circular No.21/2015 and 08/2016 issued by CBDT, we find that if the case falls in any of the exceptions provided in the said Circulars, the said monetary limits prescribed for preferring the appeal would not be applicable. A plain reading of the aforesaid Circulars would result in such understanding only, which, in our considered opinion, is unambiguous. There is absolutely no need to interpret the veracity or eligibility of the Revenue to prefer appeal before this Tribunal at the time of Miscellaneous Application proceedings u/s. 254(2) of the Act where the scope of the tribunal is very limited. We find that the ld. AR before us was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
