COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. SAMIR SYNTHETICS MILLS

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/521/2011HC GujaratGJHC24045053201107 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 held that the appeal is not pressed in view of the low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019. The court acknowledged the policy outlined in the circular, which sets monetary limits for appeals before various judicial forums. Since the appeal's tax effect was considered low in light of this circular, it was disposed of accordingly. The court explicitly stated that the appeal is not pressed. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a low tax effect, as defined by CBDT circulars, may not be pursued. The operative direction is the disposal of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns a Tax Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I (the Revenue) against Samir Synthetics Mills (the Assessee). The appeal was listed for an appropriate order by the Registry. The appeal was notified due to its low tax effect. The Revenue's decision to not press the appeal was based on Circular No. 17/2019, dated August 8, 2019, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which outlines monetary limits for filing appeals. The circular specifies monetary limits for appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Rs. 50,00,000), High Court (Rs. 1,00,00,000), and Supreme Court (Rs. 2,00,00,000). The High Court reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the appeal in case of any difficulty.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect in light of Circular No. 17/2019? (Question of law) The Revenue argued that the appeal is not pressed in view of the low tax effect, citing Circular No. 17/2019. The circular establishes monetary limits for appeals, and the present appeal falls within these limits, making it not pressable. The Revenue relied on the policy reflected in the said circular. The Assessee did not record any arguments in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/521/2011 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 521 of 2011 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I Versus SAMIR SYNTHETICS MILLS ========================================================== Appearance: MR MANISH R. BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR M R BHATT & CO. (5953) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED(64) 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/521/2011 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 →