COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II vs. EIMCO ELECON (INDIA) LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/376/2013HC GujaratGJHC24043359201321 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 held that since it was an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, and in light of 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 did not press the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as not pressed. The court also noted that if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason, the appellant would have the liberty to seek revival of the appeal. No specific finding on the merits of the original dispute was made.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax II (the appellant/revenue) against Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd (the respondent/assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges an order or action, the specifics of which are not detailed. The procedural history is that the appeal was filed before the High Court of Gujarat. During the proceedings, it was admitted by both parties that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. This admission led to the appeal being withdrawn by the appellant.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018? The assessee argued that the tax effect is below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, making the appeal non-maintainable. The revenue, represented by the learned Senior Standing Counsel, did not press the appeal due to the low tax effect, implicitly accepting the applicability of the circular. No other issues or arguments were recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/376/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 376 of 2013 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II Versus EIMCO ELECON (INDIA) LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the APPELLANT (s) No. 1 MR DEEPAK M SHAH(746) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 MR TEJ SHAH(5743) 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. Tej Shah, 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. Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/376/2013 ORDER 3. The appeal is accordingly disposed of as not pressed in the light 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 →