- (1.) As per office report, file was not available on account of fire in the Court premises. The file has been reconstructed on the basis of paper book furnished by learned Counsel for the Appellant.
(2.) The matter has been placed before this bench in pursuance of order of reference dated October 5, 2010 to the following effect: When this appeal was taken up, learned Counsel for the Assessee raised a preliminary objection relying on a judgment of this Court in CIT v. Abhinash Gupta, 2010 41 DTR(P&H) 129. He submitted that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the limit prescribed for filing of appeal by circular issued in the year 2008. Learned Counsel for the revenue submitted that the circular issued in the year 2008 did not have retrospective effect and did not control the appeal already filed which had to be decided according to the policy at the time the appeal was filed. In the judgment relied upon on behalf of the Assessee, after referring to judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF),2009 318 ITR 149, it was observed that though the circular was not retrospective, it applied to pending appeals. We are prima-facie of the view that the circular about filing of appeals cannot apply to appeals already filed prior to the date of the circular. In our opinion, the view already taken in the judgment relied upon by learned Counsel for the Assessee may require consideration by a larger bench. Let the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench.
(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.;