Ita/414/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Noble Mercantile Pvt. Ltd

$-42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49 & 50 %03.01.2017Present: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Standing Counsel for Appellants inItem Nos. Nos. 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49 & 50,Ms.Roopali Gupta for Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate forRespondents in Item Nos. 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49 & 50. + ITA Nos.405. 411. 414. 523. 527. 717 8c 726 of 2015 (common order)' This Court had framed a question of law for consideration in theseappeals. Given its pendency vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015,the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) spelt out the monetary limitsbeyond which appeals could be preferred before the Income Tax AppellateTribunal (ITAT), High Courts and SLP before the Supreme Courtrespectively. Clause 10 of the Circular reads as below:- "10. This instruction will apply retrospectively topending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in HighCourts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified taxlimits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed.Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by theinstructions on this subject, operative at the time when such, appeal was filed. " These appeals concern seven assessment years reflecting a blockperiod. The ITAT had passed a composite order in all these matters.Furthermore, the ITAT had allowed the assessees's appeal. This Courtnotices that the tax effect in these appeals is below the prescribed limited of?20,00,000/-; furtheimore, superficially, none of the case falls within theexception. In any event, it is clarified, if for some reason, these appeals orany of them falls within the exception spelt out in the Circular, it is open to the Revenue to seek restoration of the concerned appeals by an appropriateapplication. The appeals are dismissed but in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.NAJMIWAZIRI, J.JANUARY 03, 2017sb