The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, …Appellantpune v. Sulbha Subhash Lodha

Sharayu Khot. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1029 OF 2015 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, …AppellantPune Versus Sulbha Subhash Lodha …Respondent ---------- Mr. Sham Walve, for the Appellant. ---------- CORAM :M.S. SANKLECHA &RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : 20 February 2018 ORDER : 1.This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2.Mr. Walve, learned Counsel appearing for theRevenue, invited our attention to Circular No. 21 of 2015 issued 1/3 38-ITXA-1029-15.doc by the Central Board for Direct Tax dated 10December 2015. Inparticular, our attention is invited to paragraphs Nos. 3 and 10therein, which read as under:- 3)Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed incases where the tax effect does not exceed themonetary limits given hereunder:-cases where the tax effect does not exceed themonetary limits given hereunder:- S. No.Appeals in Income Tax mattersMonetary Limit(in Rs.)1Before Appellate Tribunal10,00,000/-2Before High Court20,00,000/-3Before Supreme Court25,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filedmerely because the tax effect in a case exceeds themonetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appealin such cases is to be decided on merits of thecase. 10) This instruction will apply retrospectively topending appeals and appeals to be filedhenceforth in High Courts/ Tribunals. Pendingappeals below the specified tax limits in para 3above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appealsbefore the Supreme Court will be governed by theinstructions on this subject, operative at the timewhen such appeal was filed.pending appeals and appeals to be filedhenceforth in High Courts/ Tribunals. Pendingappeals below the specified tax limits in para 3above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appealsbefore the Supreme Court will be governed by theinstructions on this subject, operative at the timewhen such appeal was filed. 2/3 3.In the present case, the tax effect is Rs. 11.99 Lakhsas mentioned in paragraph 11 of the Appeal Memo. 4.In view of the above, Mr. Walve, learned Counselappearing for the Revenue, does not press the present Appeal. 5. Accordingly, Appeal dismissed, as not pressed. 6.Refund of Court Fees, as per Rules. [RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.] 3/3