COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. ADITI EXPORTS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/2210/2009HC GujaratGJHC24041096200927 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 to withdraw the appeal 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The Court did not decide the merits of the original appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals below a certain monetary threshold, as per CBDT circulars, can be withdrawn by the Revenue, with a possibility of revival under specific circumstances. No specific issue was left undecided as the appeal was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

This is a Tax Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I against Aditi Exports Pvt Ltd. The appeal pertains to assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The order or action under challenge is the appeal itself, filed before the High Court. The procedural history is that 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 reason for withdrawal was that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the case did not fall under exceptional clauses as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Revenue reserved a right to revive the appeal if any discrepancy arises later.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by the Revenue due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, and the case not falling under any exceptional clauses. Assessee's Arguments: The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee. The respondent (Aditi Exports Pvt Ltd) was served but did not appear or present arguments. Revenue's Arguments: 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 explicitly stated as the tax effect being below Rs. 50,00,000/- and the case not fitting into the exceptional categories outlined in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. The Revenue also sought to reserve a right to revive the appeal in case of future discrepancies.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

C/TAXAP/2210/2009 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 2210 of 2009 ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I Versus ADITI EXPORTS PVT LTD ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(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)

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.

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 →