COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. SURAT PANJARAPOLE TRUST

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/346/2011HC GujaratGJHC24044993201127 January 2020Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal is not pressed by the Revenue due to the low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019. This circular establishes a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was notified for disposal in light of this circular. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in accordance with the new policy. The Court explicitly reserved the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal if any difficulty arises. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I (Revenue) against Surat Panjarapole Trust (Assessee). The specific assessment year(s) are not mentioned. The appeal is before the High Court of Gujarat. The appeal was notified for an appropriate order due to low tax effect. The Revenue decided not to press the appeal in light of Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The circular specifies a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. The High Court reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the appeal in case of difficulty.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect, considering the revised monetary limits prescribed by Circular No. 17/2019? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee did not explicitly argue any points as the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue. However, the appeal's disposal is based on the Revenue's decision to adhere to the low tax effect policy. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue submitted that the appeal is not pressed in view of the low tax effect, citing Circular No. 17/2019. This circular revises the monetary limits for filing appeals before various judicial forums, including the High Court, where the limit is Rs. 1,00,00,000.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/346/2011 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 346 of 2011 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I Versus SURAT PANJARAPOLE TRUST ========================================================== Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MRS SWATI SOPARKAR(870) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

Date : 27/01/2020

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 8th 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 8th 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/346/2011 ORDER Sr. No. Appeals/SLPs in Incometax 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) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) aruna Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →