PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. SABARKANTHA DIST. CO-OP BANK LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/323/2016HC GujaratGJHC24051737201627 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 appellant (Revenue). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted the 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 The specific findings on the merits of the original appeal, if any, are not discussed as the appeal was withdrawn. The ratio decidendi pertains to the court's discretion in allowing withdrawal of appeals based on administrative instructions and monetary limits, with a provision for revival in case of discovered errors.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is Sabarkantha Dist. Co-op Bank Ltd. The appeal concerns assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The appellant's counsel submitted a note along with a communication from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial) instructing her to withdraw 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 the exceptional clauses of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. The appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal with a reservation to revive it if any discrepancy is found later.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide whether to grant permission to the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's contention, as presented by its counsel, was that the appeal should be withdrawn because the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, and the case did not meet any exceptional criteria for pursuing appeals below that limit. The Revenue also sought liberty to revive the appeal if any discrepancies were discovered later, acknowledging the possibility of human error. The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/323/2016 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 323 of 2016 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 Versus SABARKANTHA DIST. CO-OP BANK LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR MANISH J SHAH(1320) 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 →