COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I vs. M/S HARI CHAD & CO

PDF · subscribers
ITA/271/2012HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01099351201224 September 2018Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,LOK ADALAT BENCH - 32 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court accepted the submission of the revenue that the tax effect was ₹39,75,985/-. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue was granted liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something further survived. The Court clarified that the withdrawal would not be an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the original assessment or appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning assessment year(s) not specified. The dispute revolved around the tax effect of the appeal. The assessee, M/s Hari Chand & Company, contended that the tax involved was less than ₹50 lakhs, citing the CIT(A)'s order which demanded ₹39,75,983/-. The revenue initially claimed the tax effect to be ₹65,07,564/-, calculated on an assessed income of ₹1,10,94,960/- including an addition of ₹22,10,000/-. However, upon query, it was accepted that the tax effect was ₹39,75,985/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the tax effect in the appeal is below the threshold stipulated for filing appeals by the revenue, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018? The assessee argued that the tax effect was ₹39,75,985/-, which is below the threshold. The revenue initially contended the tax effect was ₹65,07,564/- but later accepted the assessee's figure of ₹39,75,985/-. The revenue's argument was based on the tax effect being below the threshold, leading to a request to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-271-2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-271-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.9.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar ...Appellant. Versus M/s Hari Chand & Company, Hoshiarpur ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

Learned counsel for the assessee referred to order dated 26.2.2010 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short “the CIT(A)”], Jalandhar to substantiate that the tax involved in the appeal is less than ` 50 lakhs as demanded by the revenue. As per the order of the CIT(A), the income tax demanded was ` 39,75,983/-.

2.

Learned counsel for the revenue referred to para 7 of the appeal wherein it has been mentioned that the tax effect involved in this case is ` 65,07,564/-. On a query being put to learned counsel for the revenue, it was submitted that the tax effect has been calculated on the income assessed at ` 88,84,960/- and the addition of ` 22,10,000/-. As per the order of the Assessing Officer, the total income assessed is ` 1,10,94,960/-. Taking the assessed income at ` 1,10,94,960/-, the tax effect thereon would not be ` 65,07,564/- as pleaded by the revenue. Accordingly, accepting the plea of GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.09.27 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-271-2012 -2- the learned counsel for the assessee, the tax effect is taken to be ` 39,75,985/-.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect is taken as ` 39,75,985/-, the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the Circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. However, he prayed that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein.

4.

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 September 24, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.09.27 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →