Itxa/490/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10 Mumbai v. Infrastructure Leasing And Financial Services Energy Development Co Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.489 OF 2011 WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.490 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-10VersusM/s. Infrastructure Leasing and FinancialServices Energy Development Co.Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent ........... Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani for the appellant.Mr. Atul Jasani for the respondent. ........... CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & A. K. MENON, JJ. P.C.: DATE : 28[th] JULY, 2016 1.Both the Appeals relate to Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2003-04 respectively. The appeals have been filed by the Revenue from a common impugned order dated 30[th] June, 2009 disposing of two appeals for the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2003-04. 2. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue invited our attention to Circular No.21 of 2015 issued by the Central Board for Direct Tax dated 10[th ] December, 2015. In particular, our attention invited to paragraphs 3, 5 and 10 therein which read as under:- “3:-Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:- 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 appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.” “5. ….....….. However, in case of a composite order of any High Court or appellate authority, which involves more than one assessment year and common issues in more than one assessment year, appeal shall be filed in respect of all such assessment years even if the 'tax effect' is less than the prescribed monetary limits in any of the year(s), if it is decided to file appeal in respect of the year(s) in which 'tax effect' exceeds the monetary limit prescribed. In case where a composite order / judgment involves more than one assessee, each assessee shall be dealt with separately.” “10:-This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/ Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.” 3. In the present cases, the tax effect as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the each of the two Appeal Memos is as under :- Appeal No.Assessment YearAmount (Tax effect) 4. As none of the two appeals have a tax effect of Rs.20,00,000/- or more, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue does not press any of the two Appeals. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue does not press any of the two Appeals. 5.Accordingly, both the Appeals are dismissed, as not pressed. 6.Refund of Court Fees, as per Rules. (A. K. MENON, J.)(M. S. SANKLECHA, J.)