C I T AJMER vs. CHANDRA KANT PANDIT

PDF · subscribers
ITA/535/2011HC RajasthanRJHC02045424201013 January 20164 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no purpose would be served in continuing the present appeal, taking note of the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 and the tax effect in the appeal, which was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals before the High Court. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law admitted or sought to be raised were left open to be considered in an appropriate case. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in light of the CBDT Circular. The reasoning was based on the circular's intent to reduce litigation by revising monetary limits and its retrospective application to pending appeals. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against an order dated 30.10.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tax effect in the appeal was Rs. 17,79,741/-, which was below the Rs. 20 lac threshold for filing appeals before the High Court as per a subsequent CBDT Circular. The matter had been pending since 2011, and service on the respondent assessee had not been effected. The High Court noted a CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015, issued under Section 268A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which revised monetary limits for filing appeals to reduce litigation. The circular stipulated that appeals shall not be filed if the tax effect does not exceed specified limits, including Rs. 20,00,000/- before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal, with a tax effect of Rs. 17,79,741/-, should be entertained by the High Court given the revised monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015, which stipulates a limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- for High Court appeals. (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, had filed the appeal. The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments on the merits of the case. However, the appeal was filed against the ITAT's order. The primary issue addressed by the court was the applicability of the CBDT Circular to the pending appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.535/2011 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Chandra Kala Pandit Date of order 13.1.2016 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Ranka Ms. Parinitoo Jain, counsel for appellant By the Court

1.

This appeal has been preferred against order dated 30.10.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

2.

As per the order additional affidavit of Commissioner of Income-tax the tax effect is Rs.17,79,741/- i.e. below Rs.20 lac. The matter is pending since 2011 and still service on the respondent assessee has not been effected so far.

3.

It is brought to our notice that a Circular has been issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 10.12.2015 in exercise of its power u/sec. 268A (1) of the Income-tax Act 1961 laying down revision of monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before the Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before Supreme Court keeping in view the measures for reducing litigation. Para 3

2 of the Circular reads as under :- “3. Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder :- S. No. Appeals in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs.) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 2 Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3 Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case. 4. xxx xxx xxx 5. xxx xxx xxx 6. xxx xxx xxx 7. xxx xxx xxx 8. xxx xxx xxx

9.

The monetary limits specified in para 3 above shall not apply to writ matters and direct tax matters other than Income tax. Filing of appeals in other Direct tax matters shall continue to be governed by relevant provisions of statute & rules. Further, filing of appeal in cases of Income Tax, where the tax effect is not quantifiable or not involved, such as the case of registration of trusts or institutions under section 12 A of the IT Act, 1961, shall not be governed by the limits specified in para 3 above and decision to file appeal in such cases may be taken on merits of a particular case.

10.

This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was 3 filed.” And laying down other conditions as well which has to be considered by the Assessing Officer or Appellate Authority as well the CBDT in paras 9 and 10 of the Circular it has been observed that the monetary limits specified in para 3 above shall not apply to writ matters and direct tax matters, and at the same time these instructions will apply retrospectively to the pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals, and also before the Supreme Court.

4.

Taking note of the aforesaid Circular and the tax effect in the instant appeal which is much less than what has been prescribed for filing appeal before the High Courts, no purpose would be served to continue the present appeal any further. However, we make it clear that the substantial questions of law admitted/sought to be raised are left open to be considered in an appropriate case.

5.

Accordingly, in the light of the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 the appeal is dismissed. (J.K. Ranka) J. (Ajay Rastogi) J. db 149

4 [All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.] Deepankar Bhattacharya PS

More judgments on Section 268A(1)

All 190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →