C.I.T., CENTRAL, JAIPUR vs. SHYAM SUNDER TANTIA

ITA/231/2013HC RajasthanRJHC01033983201309 August 20182 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal(s). The reasoning for this decision was explicitly stated as being in view of Circular No. 3/18 dated 11.07.2018, which mandates withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lacs. Since the tax effect in the present appeal was recorded as being less than Rs. 50 lacs, permission was granted. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings on the merits of the original assessment or the grounds of appeal were made, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural basis. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the monetary threshold stipulated in the relevant CBDT circular should be withdrawn by the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Jaipur (the Revenue) against the respondents, LR’s Shyam Sunder Tantia. The appeals were connected. The present judgment concerns D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 232/2013, and by extension, the connected appeals. The procedural history leading to this specific order is that the Revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeal(s).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal(s) should be permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant (Revenue). The Revenue, through its learned counsel, sought permission to withdraw the appeal(s) in view of Circular No. 3/18 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, New Delhi. The circular pertains to the tax effect involved in the appeal being less than Rs. 50 lacs. The Revenue's contention was based on this circular, indicating a policy decision to withdraw appeals below a certain monetary threshold. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 232/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus LR’s Shyam Sunder Tantia, S/o Sh. Jagdish Rai Tantia: (i) Smt. Sunita Wd/o late Sh. Shyam Sunder Tantia (ii) Sh. Vishnu Tantia S/o late Sh. Shyam Sunder Tantia (iii) Sh. Mohit Tantia S/o late Sh. Shyam Sunder Tantia, All residents of 2-A-6, Sukhadiya Nagar, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 231/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus LR’s Shyam Sunder Tantia, S/o Sh. Jagdish Rai Tantia: (i) Smt. Sunita Wd/o late Sh. Shyam Sunder Tantia (ii) Sh. Vishnu Tantia S/o late Sh. Shyam Sunder Tantia (iii) Sh. Mohit Tantia S/o late Sh. Shyam Sunder Tantia, All residents of 2-A-6, Sukhadiya Nagar, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 233/2013 Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus (2 of 2) [ITA-232/2013] LR’s Shyam Sunder Tantia, S/o Sh. Jagdish Rai Tantia: (i) Smt. Sunita Wd/o late Sh. Shyam Sunder Tantia (ii) Sh. Vishnu Tantia S/o late Sh. Shyam Sunder Tantia (iii) Sh. Mohit Tantia S/o late Sh. Shyam Sunder Tantia, All residents of 2-A-6, Sukhadiya Nagar, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR

Order 09/08/2018 In view of Circular No.3/18 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Director Taxes, Government of India, New Delhi, the tax effect involved in the present appeal being less than Rs.50 lacs, learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the appeal(s).

Permission is granted.

The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANGEET LODHA),J DJ/- 54 to 56 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →