COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX vs. AXIS BANK LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1029/2005HC GujaratGJHC24034424200522 December 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KS JHAVERI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.J.THAKER2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The Court noted that the amount involved and the revenue effect were less than Rs. 1 lakh. Citing CBDT Instruction No. 1979 dated March 27, 2000, and Instruction No. 02 of 2005, the Court held that the revenue ought not to have filed an appeal in cases where the total revenue effect is less than Rs. 1 lakh. Consequently, the appeal was not entertained, and the substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal was dismissed on the ground of the smallness of the amount. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal in case of difficulty.

What were the facts?

The appellant, the Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal challenging an order dated September 16, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 1997-98 and concerns an addition made to the chargeable interest. The High Court of Gujarat admitted the appeal on April 20, 2006, and framed a substantial question of law. The amount in dispute was stated to be small, with a revenue effect of less than Rs. 1 lakh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition made to the chargeable interest, u/s 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act by the Assessing Officer (AO)? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The ITAT's decision was in favor of the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the addition made by the AO was correct and should not have been deleted by the ITAT. The revenue filed the appeal before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(7)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

O/TAXAP/1029/2005 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1029 of 2005

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus UTI BANK LTD.....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR RK PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

Date : 22/12/2014 Page 1 of 2

O/TAXAP/1029/2005 JUDGMENT

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-revenue has challenged the dated 16.09.2004 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in ITA No. 6/Ahd/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98. 2. While admitting this appeal on 20.04.2006, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: Whether the ITAT is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition made to the chargeable interest, u/s 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act by the A.O? 3. In our view, the amount involved in the present case is a small one and the revenue effect is less than Rs. 1 lakh, and therefore, as per CDBT Instruction No. 1979 dated 27th March, 2000 and 02 of 2005, the revenue ought not to have come in appeal where the total revenue effect is less than Rs. 1 lakh, and therefore, this appeal is not entertained. The questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This appeal is dismissed on the ground of smallness of amount. Liberty to revive in case of difficulty. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) divya Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 2(7)

All 56 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(7) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →