THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. ROY M. MATHEW

PDF · subscribers

ITA/20/2017HC KeralaKLHC01026096201702 February 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals were not maintainable. The Court reasoned that the value in the subject appeals was less than the limit stipulated by the CBDT Circular. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in S.C. Naregal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which dealt with the effect of CBDT Circulars on appeals, the High Court concluded that the present appeals fell within the purview of the Supreme Court's decision. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of maintainability, without delving into the merits of the ITAT's order. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kochi (Revenue) against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, dated October 25, 2016. The appeals concerned Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, with Roy M. Mathew as the respondent assessee. The High Court noted that the value in the subject appeals was less than the limit prescribed by a CBDT Circular. The Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment in S.C. Naregal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which considered the effect of CBDT Circulars and dismissed appeals falling within their purview.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable, given that the value in dispute is below the monetary limit stipulated by the CBDT Circular? (Question of law, turning on the interpretation and application of CBDT Circulars and Supreme Court precedents). Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded. However, the Revenue is the appellant, implying they sought to have the ITAT's order set aside or modified. The High Court's decision hinges on the applicability of the CBDT Circular and the Supreme Court's ruling in S.C. Naregal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 13TH MAGHA, 1943 ITA NO. 20 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 210/2016 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KOCHI. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: ROY M. MATHEW MUTHOOT HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY - 689 641. BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL SMT.MANJU RAJAN SRI.NARAYANAN P POTTY SMT.A.AMRUTHA VIDYADHARAN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.21/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA Nos.20/2017, 21/2017 -2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 13TH MAGHA, 1943 ITA NO. 21 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 211/2016 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KOCHI BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: SHRI.ROY M.MATHEW MUTHOOT HOUSE,KOZHENCHERRY - 689 641. BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL SMT.MANJU RAJAN SRI.NARAYANAN P POTTY SMT.A.AMRUTHA VIDYADHARAN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.20/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA Nos.20/2017, 21/2017 -3- JUDGMENT S.V.Bhatti,J. Heard learned Standing Counsel Mr. Jose Joseph and learned Counsel Mr. Mohan Pulikkal for parties. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue is the appellant. Mr Roy M Mathew/Assessee is the respondent. The subject appeals are at the instance of the Revenue from the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal'), Cochin Bench in ITA Nos.210 & 211/Coch/2016 dated 25.10.2016. The appeals deal with the Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 3. The value in the appeals is less than the limit prescribed by CBDT Circular. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in S.C.Naregal v Commissioner of Income Tax-(2019)1 has considered the effect of CBDT Circular and dismissed the appeal coming within the purport of CBDT Circular.

The valuation of the subject appeal since is less than the 1 418 ITR 455 (SC)

ITA Nos.20/2017, 21/2017 -4- limit stipulated by CBDT Circular, the judgment of Apex Court in S.C.Naregal (supra) is applicable to the appeal. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment and the latest circular, we are of the view that the appeals are not maintainable, hence are dismissed. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE JS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →