THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON vs. VINAY KUMAR RAGHAV

Facts

The appellant, the Income Tax Department, sought to withdraw its appeal (ITA-375-2018) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The withdrawal was based on Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the department before various judicial forums, including the High Court and the Supreme Court. The circular aimed to manage litigation by setting new monetary thresholds for appeals. The present appeal, filed by the Revenue, did not fall within any exceptions to the revised monetary limits as per Circular No. 5/2024.

Held

The Tribunal allowed the prayer of the appellant-Income Tax Department to withdraw the present appeal. The reasoning was based on the fact that the appeal did not fall within the exceptions provided in Circular No. 5/2024, and the revised monetary limits stipulated in Circular No. 09/2024 were applicable. The Tribunal noted that the modifications introduced by the circulars came into effect from their respective dates of issuance and were applicable to appeals pending before the Supreme Court, High Court, and Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue can be withdrawn if they no longer meet the revised monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT circulars, provided they do not fall under any specific exceptions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal, filed by the Revenue, can be withdrawn in light of Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals before the High Court. The Revenue argued that Circular No. 09/2024, read with Circular No. 5/2024, has revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue submitted that the present case does not fall within any exceptions to the revised monetary limits and therefore, it prays for the withdrawal of the present appeal. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent-assessee, Shri Vijay K. Raghav.