INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 vs. SURESH AND CO

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/538/2012HC GujaratGJHC24042957201217 September 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the tax effect involved in these appeals filed by the Revenue was below the minimum threshold prescribed by the CBDT in its circular dated 11.7.2018 for maintaining appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed all the Tax Appeals solely on this ground. The reasoning is that the CBDT circular sets a mandatory condition for the Revenue to file appeals, and non-compliance with this condition renders the appeal non-maintainable. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue that do not meet the monetary limit stipulated by the CBDT circular are liable to be dismissed without delving into the merits of the case. No specific relief was granted to the assessee as the appeals were dismissed on a procedural technicality. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax-I) against the assessee, Anupam Silk Mills Private Ltd. The appeals challenged orders from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for various assessment years, though the specific years are not detailed. The core of the matter, as indicated by the oral order, pertains to the tax effect involved in these appeals. The Revenue filed these appeals before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The procedural history is that the Revenue filed these numerous tax appeals, and the High Court heard them.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the appeals filed by the Revenue should be entertained given the tax effect involved. The Revenue's argument, as presented through their counsel, was implicitly that the appeals should be heard on their merits. The Revenue relied on the latest circular dated 11.7.2018 issued by the CBDT, which prescribes a minimum threshold for maintaining appeals before the High Court. The Revenue contended that the tax effect in these appeals was below this prescribed threshold. The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/1331/2011 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1331 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1333 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1334 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1360 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1420 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1430 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 50 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 89 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 456 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO.457 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 458 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 530 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 538 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 541 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 640 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 642 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 679 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 744 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 745 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 746 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 826 of 2012 With Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/1331/2011 ORDER R/TAX APPEAL NO. 878 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 879 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 190 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 353 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 585 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO.686 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 787 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 792 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 871 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 961 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 962 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 963 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 964 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1036 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 332 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 594 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 617 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 875 of 2014 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I Versus ANUPAM SILK MILLS PRIVATE LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MRS MAUNA BHATT, for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR VARUN K PATEL for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR TUSHAR P HEMANI(2790) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/1331/2011 ORDER MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR MANISH J SHAH for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR BS SOPARKAR for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR RK PATEL for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR TEJ SHAH for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

Date : 17/09/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) We are informed that the tax effect involved in these appeals filed by the Revenue is below the minimum threshold prescribed by CBDT in its latest   circular   dated   11.7.2018   to   enable   the Revenue   to   maintain   appeals   before   the   High Court. Tax Appeals are therefore, dismissed only on this ground. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) K.K. SAIYED Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →