Income Tax Appeal v. Machinery & Spares

Sharayu Khot. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 219 OF 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…Appellant Versus Machinery & Spares …Respondent ---------- Mr. Arvind Pinto, for the Appellant.Mr. B.G. Yewale, for the Respondent. ---------- CORAM :M.S. SANKLECHA &RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : 15 January 2018 ORDER : 1.This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Mr. Pinto, learned Counsel appearing for the 1/3 5-ITXA-219-16.doc Revenue invited our attention to Circular No. 21 of 2015 issuedby the Central Board for Direct Tax dated 10 December2015. In particular, our attention is invited to paragraph Nos. 3and 10 therein, which read as under:- “3:Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed incases where the tax effect does not exceed themonetary limits given hereunder:- S. No.Appeals in Income Tax mattersMonetary Limit(in Rs.)1Before Appellate Tribunal10,00,000/-2Before High Court20,00,000/-3Before Supreme Court25,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filedmerely because the tax effect in a case exceeds themonetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appealin such cases is to be decided on merits of thecase. 2/3 5-ITXA-219-16.doc 10:This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filedhenceforth in High Courts/ Tribunals. Pendingappeals below the specified tax limits in para 3above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appealsbefore the Supreme Court will be governed by theinstructions on this subject, operative at the timewhen such appeal was filed.” 3.In the present case, Mr. Pinto points out the taxeffect is Rs. 9.94 Lakhs as mentioned in paragraph 12 of theAppeal Memo. Therefore, he is instructed in terms of CBDTCircular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10 December 2015 to withdrawthis Appeal. 4. Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed, as withdrawn. 5.Refund of Court Fees, as per Rules. [RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.] 3/3