Itxa/1834/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax 12 v. Ratilal Vershi Shah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1834 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax - 12…Appellantv/s.Ratilal Vershi Shah…Respondent …Respondent …. Mr. P.C. Chhotaray , for the Appellant.Ms. Niyati Singh i/b Ajay Singh, for the Respondent. ….. CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA &M.S. KARNIK, J.J. DATED : 15[th] July, 2016 P.C : 1.This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2008-2009. 2.Mr. Chhotaray, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenueinvited our attention to Circular No. 21 of 2015 issued by the CentralBoard for Direct Tax dated 10[th] December, 2015. In particular, ourattention invited to paragraphs 3 and 10 therein which read as under:- “3:-Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall no be filed in cases wherethe tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits givenhereunder:- Sameer Pg 1 of 2 Sr.Appeals in Income Tax mattersMonetary LimitNo. (in Rs.)1Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/-2Before High Court 20,00,000/-3Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merelybecause the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limitsprescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to bedecided on merits of the case.” “10:-This instruction will apply retrospectively to pendingappeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Court/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits inpara 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals beforethe Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on thissubject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.” 3.In the present case, the tax effect is Rs. 10.82 lakhs asmentioned in paragraph 11 of the Appeal Memo.mentioned in paragraph 11 of the Appeal Memo. 4.In view of the above, Mr. Chhotaray, learned Counsel appearingfor the Revenue does not press the present Appeal. 5.Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed, as not pressed. 6.Refund of Court Fees, as per Rules. (M.S. KARNIK, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) Sameer Pg 2 of 2