Itta/123/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A. Nos. 297 of 2003, 94, 113, 123, 130 of 2004, 200 of2005 and 334 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.NarasimhaReddy) This batch of appeals is filed mostly for correction of anerror that has crept into the common order, dated 31.01.2003,passed by the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, in I.T.A.No.115/V/2000 and Batch. A Batch of 41 appeals is preferred by the Departmentbefore the Tribunal. On verification of the subject matter of theappeals, it was found that the subject matter of as many as 35appeals is less than the limits stipulated by the Central Board ofthe Direct Taxes (CBDT) and in para ‘9’, it was observed thatthose 35 appeals shall stand removed from the purview of thecommon order. However, in the result portion of the order, itwas observed that all the appeals are dismissed. Hence, thisbatch of appeals in respect of those matters. Heard Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Senior Standing Counselfor the appellant. None appears for the respondents. A thorough verification was undertaken about the subject matter of the individual appeals, which were filed in a Batch. Even the Departmental Representative has agreed that in thebatch of 41 cases, the subject matter of 35 cases is within thelimits stipulated by the CBDT in its circular, dated 27.03.2000. The relevant portion reads as under: “We have considered the submissions made bythe learned DR, the written submissions filed by himand the case laws referred to. As pointed out in para-4 of this order, the learned DR has urged to exclude41 cases out of the purview of this order-35 cases dueto monetary limits being more than Rs.1,00,000/- andsix cases falling under exemption clause IV. However, no evidence is produced to show that the 6cases fall under the exemption clause IV. Hence,these cases cannot be excluded. However, keepingin view the contention of the learned DR about the taxeffect in 35 cases, we are excluding 35 cases from thepurview of this order.” The same reveals that the Departmental Representative himselfadmitted that 35 appeals need to be taken away from the Batch,since they are covered by the instructions of the CBDT. However, obviously due to oversight, in the concluding portionof the order, the Tribunal observed that all the appeals filed bythe Department were dismissed in limini, without consideringthe same on merits. The discussion undertaken by the Tribunalon merits, at the most, would cover six cases that remainedafter exclusion of the Batch of 35 cases. We, therefore, dispose of the appeals directing that theorder passed by the Tribunal has covered only those cases, which are not within Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these appeals shallalso stand disposed of. REDDY,J _____________________ L.NARASIMHA _______________________ CHALLA KODANDARAM,JDt:18.11.2014 kdl