ANIL TALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 CHANDIGARH

Facts

The appeal was filed by Anil Talwar against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, North West Region, Chandigarh. The assessment year is not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges an order or action, the specifics of which are not detailed in the provided text. The core of the matter revolves around a Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) bearing No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which revised monetary limits for filing appeals. This circular aimed to manage litigation by enhancing these limits. The appellant's counsel submitted that the appeal was being withdrawn in light of this circular, as the case did not fall within any exceptions.

Held

The Tribunal, in light of the submissions made by the appellant's counsel, allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the appellant's contention that the case did not fall within any exceptions to CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, which revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The circular, effective from its issuance date, mandates that appeals/SLPs to be filed before the Supreme Court, High Court, and ITAT shall adhere to these new limits. Consequently, appeals pending before these authorities, where a decision to appeal/file SLP was taken without regard to tax effect, may have been directed to be withdrawn. The Tribunal found no exception applicable to the present case. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the revised monetary limits for filing appeals, as stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, are applicable to the present appeal, thereby permitting its withdrawal? (Question of law and fact, concerning the application of the circular). Assessee's Contentions: The appellant's counsel argued that the appeal was being withdrawn in terms of CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. They contended that the case did not fall within any exceptions provided in the circular, and therefore, the prayer for withdrawal should be allowed. They relied on the circular itself. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's side. It notes that Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing counsel, appeared for the Income Tax Department.