Ita v. Kheraj Rijhwani

1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE ITA No.128 of 2016(Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Kheraj Rijhwani) Indore, dated : 03.04.2018 Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the order dated 04.10.2017 passed in ITA No.119/2016 and other connected matters and submits that the present case is covered by the detailed order passed on 04.10.2017, which reads as under :- Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of I.T.A.No. 119/2016 are narrated hereunder. 2. The present appeal has been filed u/S. 260 the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 19/5/2016 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore in ITA. No. 81/Ind/14 for the assessment year 2002 – 2003. 3. At the outset, Mr. Sumit Nema, learned senior counsel for the appellant has argued before this Court that in the present appeal as well as in the connected appeals, monetary values is less than Rs.20.00 lacs and, therefore, in the light of the Circular dated 10/12/2016, no appeal should have been filed by the Department. 4. This Court has carefully gone through the record of the case and in the present case, the monetary tax effect involved is Rs.19,120/-. In the present case and in other connected identical matters which are being disposed by this common order, the tax effect involved is as under :CASE No. NAME OF THE PARTIES TAX EFFECT IN Rs.I.T.A.No.119/2016 Principal Commissioner of Commissioner Tax-I, Indore Vs. Kailash RijhwaniRs. 19,120/-I.T.A.No.120/2016 Principal Commissioner of Commissioner Tax-I, Indore Vs.Kailash RijhwaniRs.23,258/-I.T.A.No.121/2016 Principal Commissioner of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE ITA No.128 of 2016(Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Kheraj Rijhwani) 5. Thus, in all the aforesaid cases, the tax effect is not exceeding the limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular dated 10/12/2015 ie., Rs.20.00 lacs. In one case the tax effect is NIL also. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 8 of the Circular issued by the Department reads as under : 3. Henceforth, appeals/ SLP shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder: 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE ITA No.128 of 2016(Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Kheraj Rijhwani) S.No. Appeals in Income tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs.) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 2 Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3 Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of paper in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case. 4. For this purpose, "tax effect" means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issues against which appeal is intended to be filed (hereinafter referred to as "disputed issues"). However, the tax will not include any interest thereon, except where chargeability of interest itself is in dispute. In case the chargeability of interest is the issue under dispute, the amount of interest shall be the tax effect. In cases where returned loss is reduced or assessed as income, the tax effect would include notional tax on disputed additions. In case of penalty orders, the tax effect will mean quantum of penalty deleted or reduced in the order to be appealed against. 8. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect : (a) Where the Constitutional validity or the provisions of an Act or Rule are under challenge, or (b) Where Board's order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or (c) Where Revenue Audit Objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, or (d) Where the addition relates to undisclosed foreign assets/ bank accounts.foreign assets/ bank accounts. 6. The present cases are not the cases where constitutional 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE ITA No.128 of 2016 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Kheraj Rijhwani) validity of any provision or Act is involved nor any Notification, instructions or Circular has been declared as ultra vires and the other contingencies, as provided in paragraph 8 of the Circular dt. 10/12/2015 are also not attracted and, therefore, keeping in view the Circular dt. 10/12/2015, the present appeal and other connected appeals stand disposed of. No order as to costs. In view of the aforesaid, present Income Tax Appeal is disposed of accordingly. (P. K. Jaiswal) Judge gp (Virender Singh)Judge Digitally signed by Geeta Pramod Date: 2018.04.04 18:39:05 +05'30'