PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, AHMEDABAD vs. UPENDRA CHINUBHAI SHAH, 3, NANDI HILL

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/72/2017HC GujaratGJHC24056772201707 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 captioned appeal is not pressed by the Revenue in view of the low tax effect, having regard to Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted the new policy as reflected in the circular, which provides monetary limits for appeals at different levels. Specifically, for appeals before the High Court, the monetary limit is Rs. 1,00,00,000. 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 finding was made on the merits of the original assessment or the grounds of appeal, as the appeal was not pressed.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns a Tax Appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad (the Revenue) against Upendra Chinubhai Shah (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 pursue or not pursue the appeal was to be considered 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 outlines monetary limits for appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts, and the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019). Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee. The appeal is being disposed of based on the Revenue's stance and the applicable circular. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue submitted that the appeal is not pressed due to the low tax effect, referencing Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue indicated that the appeal should be disposed of in accordance with the policy reflected in this circular, which sets monetary limits for appeals.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/72/2017 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 72 of 2017 ========================================================== PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, AHMEDABAD Versus UPENDRA CHINUBHAI SHAH, 3, NANDI HILL ========================================================== Appearance: MR MANISH R. BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR M R BHATT & CO. (5953) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) 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/72/2017 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 →