PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. ROMA MANOHAR LAKHIANI

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/636/2017HC GujaratGJHC24057047201707 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 should be disposed of as not pressed, in view of the low tax effect and in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular provides monetary limits for appeals, with Rs. 1,00,00,000 being the limit for appeals before the High Court. Since the tax effect of the present appeal was below this limit, the Revenue chose not to pursue it. The Court disposed of the appeal accordingly. The Court also reserved the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds based on the circular.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Revenue) filed a Tax Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The appeal was against an order concerning Roma Manohar Lakhiani (Assessee). The appeal was notified for passing an appropriate order due to its low tax effect. The Revenue decided not to press the appeal in light of Circular No. 17/2019, dated August 8, 2019, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The circular specifies monetary limits for appeals before the Appellate Tribunal (Rs. 50,00,000), High Court (Rs. 1,00,00,000), and Supreme Court (Rs. 2,00,00,000). The High Court disposed of the appeal accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not present any arguments as the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the appeal should be disposed of without pressing it, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which establishes monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeal's tax effect was below the threshold specified for appeals before the High Court in the said circular.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/636/2017 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 636 of 2017 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 Versus ROMA MANOHAR LAKHIANI ========================================================== Appearance: MR MANISH R. BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR M R BHATT & CO. (5953) 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 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/636/2017 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 →