PRINCIPAL COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX - 2 vs. EASY TRANSCRIPTION AND SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/998/2017HC GujaratGJHC24057233201727 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 permission as prayed for by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The specific findings on the merits of the original appeal, if any, are not discussed or decided as the appeal was withdrawn. The ratio decidendi of this order is that the High Court will permit withdrawal of an appeal by the Revenue if the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit and the case does not fall under exceptional categories, with liberty to revive if errors are found.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, filed a Tax Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad against an order (not specified) concerning the assessment year(s) (not specified). The respondent is Easy Transcription and Software Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was filed challenging the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Revenue, through a communication from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial), instructed its counsel to withdraw the appeal. This instruction was based on the tax effect being below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, and the case not falling under any exceptional clauses.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be permitted to be withdrawn by the Revenue. (Question of procedure/merits) Assessee's Contention: The judgment records no specific contentions from the assessee. The respondent, Easy Transcription and Software Pvt. Ltd., is not recorded as having made any arguments in this specific order. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, submitted a note and a communication from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial) instructing the withdrawal of the appeal. The grounds for withdrawal were that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- as stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, and the case did not meet any of the exceptional criteria mentioned in the circular. The Revenue also sought to reserve a right to revive the appeal if any discrepancy was discovered later, acknowledging the possibility of human error.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 7 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/998/2017 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 998 of 2017 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX - 2 Versus EASY TRANSCRIPTION AND SOFTWARE PVT. LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR SN DIVATIA(1378) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED(64) 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) Vijay

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →