PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. AMIT GUPTA

PDF · subscribers

ITA/305/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110508201605 April 2017Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the assessee had raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a minimum tax effect for appeals. The tax effect in this case was ₹12,64,428, which was below the limit. The Revenue, in an affidavit, acknowledged this fact and sought to withdraw the appeal. The Court explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the question of law claimed by the Revenue, and it would be open for the Revenue to agitate the matter if occasion arises in the future. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad (appellant-Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated September 9, 2015, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) for the assessment year 2006-07. The respondent-assessee, Amit Gupta, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, citing CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. This circular prescribes a minimum tax effect for appeals to be filed. The tax effect in this appeal was stated to be ₹12,64,428, which was below the prescribed limit. The Revenue was granted time to consider this objection. Subsequently, the Revenue filed an affidavit acknowledging the tax effect and praying for withdrawal of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, given that the tax effect of ₹12,64,428 is below the prescribed minimum limit? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the minimum limit stipulated in Circular No. 21/2015. The Revenue should withdraw the appeal as per the circular. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through an affidavit, acknowledged that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and prayed for permission to withdraw the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 209 Income Tax Appeal No.305 of 2016 Date of decision: April 05, 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant versus Amit Gupta c/o M/s Heena Industries Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN ***** Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent. ****** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

(Oral)

The appellant-Revenue has approached this Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dated 09.09.2015 (Annexure A-IV) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal') in ITA No.3292/DEL/2013 for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. On March 21, 2017, learned counsel for the respondent- assessee had raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present appeal as the tax effect involved in the appeal was ` 12,64,428/- which is less than the minimum prescribed limit mentioned in Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. It was urged by learned counsel for the respondent-assessee that the appeal could not continue and the appellant-Revenue in terms of the aforesaid Circular should withdraw the present appeal. Accordingly, the case Sonia Kinra 2017.04.07 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA No.305 of 2016 -2- ------ was adjourned to 29.03.2017 but on that day, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for further time to comply with order dated 21.03.2017 and the case was listed for today.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue has produced an affidavit of Smt. Anuradha Mookerjee, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad in Court today which has been filed acknowledging that the tax effect involved in this appeal is ` 12,64,428/- which is less than the minimum quantum limit prescribed in Circular No.21/2015 and a prayer for withdrawal of the present appeal has been made. The same is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

In view of the said affidavit, it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue that he may be allowed to withdraw the present appeal.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

Needless to clarify that no opinion on the question of law claimed by the Revenue-appellant has been expressed and it shall be open for the Revenue to agitate, if occasion so arises. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN) April 05, 2017 JUDGE sonia gugnani Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Sonia Kinra 2017.04.07 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →