Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Revenue directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda (CIT(A) for short) dated 18.09.2015, allowing the assessees appeal contesting the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08 vide order dated 13.03.2014.

2. None appeared for the assessee-respondent when the appeal was called out for hearing, and neither is there any adjournment motion on record, even as there is proper service inasmuch as the notice of hearing, sent per registered post, has not come back unserved. It was, however, submitted by the ld. Departmental ITA No. 610/Asr/2015 (AY 2007-08) ITO v. Inderjit Singh 2 below Rs. 20 lacs, so that the same is not maintainable u/s. 268A of the read with the latest instruction, i.e., No. 3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, by the CBDT, prescribing the threshold monetary limit applicable for the Revenues appeals before the Tribunal u/s. 268A of the at Rs. 20 lacs. Observing that the quantum of penalty deleted per the impugned order, as stated in Form 36, is Rs. 40.11 lacs, he was queried in the matter. The matter, it was explained, had since travelled to the Honble jurisdictional High Court, i.e., in quantum proceedings (C.S. Atwal v. CIT [2015] 378 ITR 244 (P&H)) , which has allowed substantial relief in quantum, i.e., in respect of transfers which had not been registered in the name of the buyers. The penalty amount that survives the said decision, included in the penalty deleted by the ld. CIT(A), is Rs. 5,82,680/-, i.e. below Rs. 20 lacs, placing on record copy of the withdrawal letters dated 25/1/2019 and 6/2/2019 by the office of the Pr. CIT, Bathinda and Pr. CIT, Amritsar respectively bearing a reference to, among others, the instant appeal as well.

3. Section 268A of theprovides that an appellate authority, including the Appellate Tribunal, shall have regard to the instructions, directions, orders, etc. issued by the Board from time to time fixing monetary limits for the purpose of regulating the filing of appeals by the Revenue before the different appellate authorities, and which shall, while deciding those appeals, have regard to the said limits. The monetary limit fixed per the latest instruction supra for the appeals before the tribunal is Rs. 20 lacs.

4. Under the circumstances, therefore, the instant appeal, being covered by section 268A read with the applicable instruction cited supra, which is to apply for pending appeals as well, is not maintainable. The Revenues appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine as not maintainable. We decide accordingly. ITA No. 610/Asr/2015 (AY 2007-08) ITO v. Inderjit Singh 3

5. In the result, the Revenues appeal is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the open court on March 05, 2019 Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. Choudhry) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Date: 05.03.2019 /GP/Sr. Ps. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Zira at Ferozepur (2) The Respondent: Inderjit Singh, c/o Hira Industry Corporation, Zira (3) The CIT(Appeals), Bathinda (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order