COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. DR.YOGESHBHAI P UPADHYAY HUF

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/649/2011HC GujaratGJHC24045109201127 November 2018Author: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted the liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in the future, should any discrepancy come to notice after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The specific reasons for the original appeal or the order under challenge were not discussed as the appeal was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II (Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad against an order concerning Dr. Yogeshbhai P Upadhyay HUF (Assessee). The appeal was filed for Assessment Year(s) not specified in the judgment. The Revenue, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, submitted a note along with a communication from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial). This communication instructed the withdrawal of the appeal because the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-, and the case did not fall under any exceptional clauses as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. The Revenue reserved the right to revive the appeal if any discrepancy was discovered later, acknowledging the possibility of human error.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by the Revenue based on the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and the tax effect being below the monetary limit. Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the appeal should be withdrawn as per the instructions received from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial). This instruction was based on the tax effect being below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the case not meeting the criteria for exceptional clauses outlined in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. The Revenue also sought to reserve the right to revive the appeal in case of any future discrepancies, citing the possibility of human error.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/649/2011 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 649 of 2011 ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II Versus DR.YOGESHBHAI P UPADHYAY HUF ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 BHOOMI M THAKORE(6237) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 MS NISHA M THAKORE(3293) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER Date : 27/11/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

1.

Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant has submitted a note together with a communication dated 29.10.2018 of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial), for Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad, instructing her to withdraw the appeal as the tax effect is below the monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/- and the case does not fall in the exceptional clauses as per the CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, reserving a right to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after withdrawal of the appeal as human error cannot be ruled out.

2.

Permission as prayed for is granted. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (A. P. THAKER, J) R.S. MALEK

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →