A C I T , CIRCLE-5 THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. MAHALAXMI BUILDERS

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1164/2011HC GujaratGJHC24045360201121 January 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, in light of the admitted position that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The Court relied on Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the CBDT. This circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and has been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appellant's counsel did not press the appeal. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the ACIT, Circle-5 (the Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is Mahalaxmi Builders. The specific assessment year(s) are not mentioned in the provided text. The appeal is before the High Court of Gujarat. The core of the matter is that both parties admit that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. This fact is crucial for the subsequent decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be entertained given the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Revenue (appellant) argued that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. Relying on Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which stipulates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant does not press the present appeal. The Assessee (respondent) did not present any arguments as the appeal was not pressed by the appellant.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/1164/2011 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1164 of 2011 ========================================================== A C I T , CIRCLE-5 THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III Versus MAHALAXMI BUILDERS ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the APPELLANT(s) No. 1 MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

Date : 21/01/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mr.Varun K. Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. S. Soparkar, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. It is an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.50,00,000/-. Under the circumstances, in the light of the Circular No.3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes which provides that no appeal wherein the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and has also been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant does not press the present appeal. 3. The appeal is accordingly disposed of as not pressed in the light Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/1164/2011 ORDER of the Circular dated 11th July, 2018. However, in case there is any error in the computation of the tax effect involved or if for any reason, the circular is not applicable, it would be open for the appellant to seek revival of the appeal. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (A. P. THAKER, J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →