CIT-III LUDHIANA vs. M/S MALWA INDUSTRIES LTD.

PDF · subscribers

ITA/46/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093395201007 February 2019Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL1 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The court noted the communication from the Income Tax Officer (Hq.)(Judl.) stating the tax effect was ₹12,64,621/-, which is below the CBDT's monetary limit of ₹50,00,000/- for High Court appeals. Consequently, the learned counsel for the revenue stated they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival if circumstances warranted. It was clarified that the withdrawal does not signify affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issue claimed by the revenue is left open for adjudication in an appropriate case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the original dispute.

What were the facts?

The appeal, ITA No. 46 of 2010, was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against M/s Malwa Industries Ltd. (respondent-assessee). The case concerns assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The appeal challenges an order passed by an authority, presumably the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), though not explicitly stated. The amount in dispute, or tax effect, was determined to be ₹12,64,621/-. The procedural history involves the revenue's decision to withdraw the appeal based on a CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue is maintainable given the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT? The revenue argued that the tax effect of ₹12,64,621/- is less than the monetary limit of ₹50,00,000/- fixed by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, for filing appeals in High Courts. Therefore, they sought to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was not represented, and no arguments were recorded on their behalf. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 46 of 2010 Decided on : 07.02.2019 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s Malwa Industries Ltd. . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue. None for the respondent-assessee. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue has produced a communication dated 06/07.12.2018, addressed by the Income Tax Officer (Hq.)(Judl.), Office of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ludhiana to the learned Sr. Standing Counsel, wherein, the tax effect involved in the present case has been shown as `12,64,621/-, which is less than the monetary limit of ` 50,00,000/- fixed by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi, vide circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, for filing the appeals in the High Courts. The said communication is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at the appropriate place.

In view of the above, learned counsel for the revenue states that since the tax effect involved in the present case is less than the monetary limit fixed by the C.B.D.T., therefore, he has instructions to withdraw the present present appeal. He, however, prayed that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is, however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 07, 2019 J.Ram (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2019.02.11 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →