IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY<\/p>\n
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION<\/p>\n
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1142 OF 2015<\/strong><\/p>\n Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai 13 …. Appellant<\/p>\n Vs.<\/p>\n M\/s Nawany Construction Co. Pvt Ltd …. Respondent<\/p>\n Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellant.<\/p>\n Mr. Sameer Dalal with Ms Namrata Kasale i\/by<\/p>\n Mr. Vipul Joshi for the Respondent.<\/p>\n CORAM: <\/strong>S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.<\/p>\n DATE : <\/strong>SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 <\/p>\n P.C:<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. When this appeal was called out, Mr. Arvind Pinto, appearing on behalf of the Revenue in support of this appeal, made a very strange request. He said that this appeal raises questions of law which are indeed substantial questions of law.<\/p>\n These questions are proposed on page 5 of the paperbook {questions 6.1 to 6.3}.<\/p>\n 2. He would submit that such questions are already admitted by this Court and in that regard he would refer to an order passed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.254 of 2013. That Income Tax Appeal No.254 of 2013 has been erroneously withdrawn.<\/p>\n 3. A notice of motion (No.531 of 2018) has been filed in that appeal for the following two reliefs:<\/p>\n “A. That this <\/em>Hon’ble Court<\/em> be pleased to allow the<\/em> Applicant, the successorinoffice,<\/em> consequent to the<\/em> reorganization of Charges to the Original Appellant to<\/em> amend the Appeal iF required without reverification.<\/em><\/p>\n B. That this <\/em>Hon’ble Court<\/em> be pleased to restore the<\/em> Appeal that was admitted vide Order dated 22<\/em>nd <\/em>January<\/em> 2013, but wrongly withdrawn on the grounds that this<\/em> tax effect was below the threshold as per CBDT Circular<\/em> No.21 of 2015 dated December 2015; since the Revenue<\/em> was not aware that there was another order of the<\/em> Tribunal dated the 26.11.2014 for the same assessment<\/em> year.”<\/em><\/p>\n 4. Thus now, that appeal is to be restored to the file of this Court and if that happens, even this appeal would have to be admitted, is the submission.<\/p>\n 5. We note a basic fallacy in this submission. Firstly, this Court has not restored Income Tax Appeal No.254 of 2013 to its file. It is only a request to restore that appeal which is pending but that will be subject to the orders of this Court.<\/p>\n Secondly, though the tax effect in terms of the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015, dated 10122015, is Rs.20,00,000\/, now there is Revenue’s another Circular dated 1172018.<\/p>\n That enhances the figure to Rs.50,00,000\/.<\/p>\n