DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1) vs. TARAL MODI

PDF · subscribers
TAXC/54/2019HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01025629201908 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 Court's decision was based on the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the Revenue, citing the change in litigation policy as per Circular No. 17 of 2019. The circular indicated that the amount in dispute did not cross the minimum benchmark required for pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the ITAT's order or the substantial questions of law that were initially raised. The principle derived is that appeals can be withdrawn if they no longer meet the criteria set by the prevailing litigation policy.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1), Raipur, has filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur Bench, Raipur. The appeal was preferred on the ground that it involved substantial questions of law. The assessee is Taral Modi. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history is that the appeal was filed by the Revenue before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur.

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 litigation policy notified by the Government via Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, the amount in dispute did not meet the minimum benchmark for filing an appeal. Therefore, 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. 54 of 2019 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ---- Appellant Versus Taral Modi, C/o Modi Sons, Malviya Road, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant : Shri Amit Chaudhary, Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali and Shri Ajay Kumrani, 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 IT(SS)A No. 314/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 →