Satish Chandra, J.M. - (1.) ALL the three appeals have been filed by the Department against different orders of the learned CIT(A), dt. 10th May, 2004, 7th May, 2004 and 30th April, 2004, respectively, for the block period 1st April, 1995 to 13th Dec, 2001. The assessees have also filed the cross-objections.
(2.) It may be mentioned that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs. 1 lac and consequently as directed by CBDT in the Instruction No. 1979 (F. No. 279/126/98-ITJ), dt. 27th March, 2000, and further explained by the Instruction No. 1985, dt. 29th June, .2000 (F.No. 279/126/98-ITJ), no second appeal is to be filed if the tax effect is less than Rs. 1 lakh. The exceptions are, however, made only in four cases and these are : (1) Where the Revenue audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department (2) Where Board's order, notification, instruction or circular is the subject-matter of an adverse order. (3) Where prosecution proceedings are contemplated against the assessee, and (4) Where the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act are under challenge. No such exception has been pointed out in this case. Therefore, the Revenue should have refrained from filing second appeal in view of the aforesaid CBDT circular and consequently the time of the Tribunal, of its own (Revenue's) officers, as well as of the assessee would have been saved and utilized on some substantive matters. It would be apt to quote the observations of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. ITAT (1988) 232 ITR 207 (Del) at page No. 216 as below : "The CBDT instructions are binding on the Department. If the case at hand is covered by a policy laid down by the CBDT in that case no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal refusing to state the case and there is no reason why the High Court should interfere with such discretion of the Tribunal as has been exercised consistently with the uniform policy laid down by the CBDT which binds all the subordinate authorities of the IT Department. The High Court would not ordinarily encourage breach of policy decisions and the Departmental instructions which have a public purpose behind them. Valuable time of High Courts and highly placed Tribunals is not to be wasted on petty matters."
(3.) HOWEVER, by keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 300 (Raj), we examined the issue on merits also.;