PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 vs. PINO BISAZZA GLASS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/197/2018HC GujaratGJHC24011174201807 January 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided to dispose of the tax appeal as not pressed, citing the low tax effect and the policy enunciated in Circular No. 17/2019. The court acknowledged the monetary limits for appeals before the High Court as Rs. 1,00,00,000 as per the circular. The appeal was disposed of in accordance with this circular. The court also reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute before the ITAT, as the appeal was not pressed.

What were the facts?

The appeal, C/TAXAP/197/2018, was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3 against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning assessment year(s) not specified. The appeal was listed for an appropriate order due to its low tax effect. The Revenue, represented by Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, and the Assessee, Pino Bisazza Glass Pvt Ltd, represented by Mr. Hiren J Trivedi and Mr. S. P. Majmudar, were present. The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad considered Circular No. 17/2019, dated August 8, 2019, issued by the CBDT, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether to proceed with the hearing of the tax appeal given its low tax effect, in light of Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue's contention, as indicated by the court's order, was that the appeal was not pressed due to the low tax effect, aligning with the policy outlined in the aforementioned circular. The circular specifies monetary limits for appeals before various authorities, including the High Court (Rs. 1,00,00,000). The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Assessee regarding the merits of the case or the applicability of the circular.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/197/2018 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 197 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 Versus PINO BISAZZA GLASS PVT LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MR MANISH R. BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR M R BHATT & CO. (5953) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 HIREN J TRIVEDI(8808) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

Date : 07/01/2022

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. The Registry has notified the appeal for the purpose of passing an appropriate order. The captioned appeal has been notified because of the low tax effect. The appeal is to be disposed of keeping in mind the Circular No.17/2019, dated 8 th August, 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 2. This tax appeal is not pressed in view of the low tax effect having regard to the Circular No.17/2019, dated 8 th August, 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 3. According to the new policy as reflected from the Circular referred to above, the table for monetary limits is as follows:- Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/197/2018 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022 Sr. No. Appeals/SLPs in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (Rs.) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 50,00,000 2 Before High Court 1,00,00,000 3 Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000 4. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. In case of any difficulty, we reserve the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →