Asst. Commissioner, Income Tax, Central Circle-1 v. Sri Vijay Kumar Malik, 1/58 Gali Bagichi Wali Punja Sharif

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNAMiscellaneous Appeal No.512 of 2006 ====================================================== 1.Commissioner Of Income Tax ( Central), Patna 2.Asst. Commissioner, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Patna…………………………………………….Appellants Versus Sri Vijay Kumar Malik, 1/58 Gali Bagichi Wali Punja Sharif, Kashmere Gate, Delhi…………………………. Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Harshwardhan Pd, SSC Mr. Rishi Raj Singh,J.C. to SSC. . For the Respondent/s Dr. Krishnanandan Singh, Sr. Advocate Dr. Kamaldeo Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Sri Ram Krishna, Advocate & Mr. Vidhan Chandra Pathak,Advocate ----------- CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) 0 27-02-2012 Heard the parties. According to learned counsel for the appellant a substantial question of law is involved as to whether the Board’s Instruction No. 2 of 2005 dated 24-10-2004, whereby monetary limit for the purpose of restricting the Revenue from filing appeal was raised to Rs.2,00000/- was applicable to the appeal preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal , Patna Bench, Patna in the year 2005 when the assessment year is 1993-94. 2 Naresh/- The Tribunal has considered this issue in detail and has taken a decision contrary to the submission advanced on behalf of Revenue i.e. the appellant on the basis of several judgments of different High Courts and also that of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vrs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, reported in 267 ITR 272. There may be some justification in the stand taken by learned counsel for the appellant and an issue may arise regarding applicability of such circular to old references and appeals already filed, on the ground that the Apex Court has not decided this issue directly in the aforesaid judgment, but such submission is only of academic interest in the present case because when the appeal was preferred in the year 2005 before the Tribunal the instruction of 2004 was already in operation and as per the Supreme Court such circular, though not binding on a court or an assessee, binds the Revenue. In our view, in the facts of the case, no substantial question of law falls for decision by this Court in the present appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)