COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SUBHASH KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MS . P.L. Bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue says that a comprehensive review has been undertaken by all the CITs in Delhi with a view to reduce the number of appeals filed in this Court. The matter has also been discussed with the concerned Member of the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT') as well as the Chairman of the over to us in Court today.

(2.) WE have perused the document and have discussed the matter with the CIT as well as with learned counsel and we find that the suggested measures to reduce litigations in this Court are incapable of being meaningfully given effect to. CBDT namely Instruction No. 2 of 2005 as modified by Instruction No. 5 of 2007 should be strictly adhered to. The opinion of the learned senior standing counsel should be taken with regard to the advisability of filing an appeal, which we are told is already in vogue. We may note that Ms. P.L. Bansal, learned senior standing counsel, has earlier informed us on more than one occasion that the opinion of the standing counsel is not necessarily accepted by the Revenue and which has resulted in the Revenue flooding this Court with appeals, many of which are frivolous.

(3.) WE are of the view that cases, such as the present one, where tax effect is nil ought not to be even processed and either the CBDT or the CITs have imposed upon the Revenue to file an appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, frivolous appeals having little or no tax effect can continue to be filed.