DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,(1) vs. M/S ARUN TRADE COMBINES

PDF · subscribers
TAXC/62/2019HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01025632201908 September 2019Author: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court granted permission to the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided is based on the change in the litigation policy of the Government, as notified by Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. The Revenue contended that the amount in dispute in this particular appeal did not cross the minimum monetary threshold stipulated in the revised policy. Therefore, the Revenue was no longer inclined to pursue the appeal. The High Court, accepting this submission, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No findings were made on the merits of the ITAT's order or the substantial questions of law that were initially raised. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur, filed an appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur Bench, in ITA No. 119/RPR/2014. The appeal was preferred under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, raising questions of substantial law. The assessee is M/s Arun Trade Combines. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the ITAT passing an order which was then challenged by the Revenue before the High Court.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the appeal filed by the Revenue involved substantial questions of law, as contemplated under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue's contention, as presented by the learned standing counsel, was that due to a change in the litigation policy notified by the Government vide Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, the amount in dispute in this appeal did not meet the minimum benchmark prescribed by the new policy. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee's side regarding the substantial questions of law or the merits of the ITAT's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR TAXC No. 62 of 2019 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ---- Appellant Versus M/s Arun Trade Combines, 101, Deopuri Mana Road, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant : Shri Amit Chaudhary and Ms. Naushina Afrin, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 09.09.2019

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue, on being aggrieved by the verdict passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur (for short, 'ITAT') in ITA No. 119/RPR/2014 raising/suggesting various questions as involving substantial questions of law under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned standing counsel for the Appellant submits that by virtue of the change of litigation policy notified by the Government as per the Circular bearing No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, the amount in dispute does not cross the hurdle of minimum benchmark and in the said circumstance, the above appeal is sought to be withdrawn.

3.

In the said circumstances, permission is granted. This appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

(P. R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →