DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2(1) vs. SHRI B.L. AGRAWAL

PDF · subscribers
TAXC/111/2023HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01018582202307 May 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GOUTAM BHADURI,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY AGRAWAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal is not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the submission that the tax amount involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit fixed for preferring an appeal. The Court specifically referred to Circular No. 17/2019 and Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that if the tax effect is below Rs. 10 lakhs (though the circular mentions Rs. 1 crore, the judgment mentions Rs. 10 lakhs in point 4, indicating a potential discrepancy or specific applicability), the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1) Raipur (the Petitioner/Revenue) against an order concerning Shri B.L. Agrawal (the Respondent/Assessee) for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Respondent's counsel submitted that the appeal is not maintainable because the tax effect involved is less than Rs. 1 crore, citing Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Respondent also referred to a Supreme Court order in Principal Commissioner of Wealth-tax vs. Oriental Building & Furnishing Co. Ltd. where appeals with low tax effect were dismissed. The judgment notes that the tax amount involved is lower than the monetary limit for preferring an appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is maintainable before this Court given that the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by Circular No. 17/2019, as per Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The Respondent (Assessee) argued that the appeal is not maintainable due to the low tax effect, citing Circular No. 17/2019. They further supported this by referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Wealth-tax vs. Oriental Building & Furnishing Co. Ltd., where appeals with low tax effect were dismissed. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Petitioner (Revenue) in response to the maintainability issue raised by the Respondent.

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. 111 of 2023 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2(1) Raipur C.G. ---- Petitioner Versus Shri B.L. Agrawal Near Radha Krishna Saw Mills, New Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur, C.G. P.A.N.- A C L P A 5669 A, A.Y. -2010-11. ---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri Ajay Kumarani, Advocate. For Respondent Shri Mohit Kumar, Advocate. Division Bench:Hon'ble Justice Shri

Goutam Bhaduri

and

Hon’ble Jusitce Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on board 08.05.2024

1.

Counsel for the Respondent submits that as the value of this appeal is less than Rs.1 crore, in view of the Circular No.17/2019 issued by Memo No.F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) dated 08.08.2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, Judicial Section, this appeal is not maintainable, and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed as not maintainable.

2.

Counsel for the respondent referred to the Order passed by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Wealth-tax vs. Oriental Building & Furnishing Co. Ltd. Reported in (2023) 152 Taxmann.com 504 (SC) and submits that because of low tax effect, the appeal has been dismissed by the Apex Court.

3.

The tax amount involved in the present appeal is lower than the 2 monetary limit fixed to prefer an Appeal.

4.

In view of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the effect of tax amount is below Rs.10 lacks, pursuant to the circular, this appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is liable to be dismissed.

5.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. (Goutam Bhaduri)

JUDGE

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE vivek

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 →