COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S MANILAL PRABHUDAS PATEL

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/1044/2011HC GujaratGJHC24045303201127 January 2020Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided that the appeal should be disposed of in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019, dated 8th August, 2019, due to the low tax effect. The reasoning is that the appeal falls within the monetary limits prescribed by the circular for appeals before the High Court, making it not pressable. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a low tax effect, as defined by the CBDT circulars, should be withdrawn or dismissed to streamline litigation and focus on substantial issues. The operative direction is to dispose of the appeal accordingly. The court reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This is a Tax Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar, against M/s Manilal Prabhudas Patel. The appeal was notified for an appropriate order due to low tax effect. The appeal was filed against an order passed by an authority under the Income Tax Act, for assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated but is implied to be below the monetary limit for appeals before the High Court as per Circular No. 17/2019. The procedural history involves the Registry notifying the appeal for disposal based on the low tax effect policy.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect, in light of Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the CBDT? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The appeal is not pressed in view of the low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019. The assessee relies on the policy outlined in the circular which sets monetary limits for appeals. The circular specifies a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the Revenue regarding the issues. However, the appeal itself was filed by the Revenue, indicating an initial intent to pursue the matter. The decision to dispose of the appeal is based on the Revenue's non-pressing of the appeal due to the low tax effect policy.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/1044/2011 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1044 of 2011 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GANDHINAGAR Versus M/S MANILAL PRABHUDAS PATEL ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) 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 MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

Date : 27/01/2020

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 8th 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 8th 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/1044/2011 ORDER Sr. No. Appeals/SLPs in Incometax 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) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) aruna Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →