PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI MANISH SWAMI ,

ITA/76/2021HC RajasthanRJHC02063819202121 February 2024Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeals. The Court noted the respondents' preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of an appeal against an order passed in a rectification application, citing relevant case law. The appellant sought liberty to avail remedies to challenge the order passed in the M.A. The Court observed that the Tribunal had dismissed the original appeal without going into merits due to low tax effect, and the subsequent M.A. was also dismissed. The grievance of the department was against the rejection of the M.A., and the dismissal of the appeal on tax effect was consequential to the applicability of the circular dated 06.09.2019. The Court found that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order in the appeal. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of with liberty to the appellants to pursue remedies in accordance with law to challenge the order passed in the M.A. and seek consequential reliefs.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (Tribunal) dismissal of appeals for the assessment year 2014-2015. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeals on the grounds of low tax effect, relying on a circular. Subsequently, the revenue filed a rectification application (M.A.) before the Tribunal, arguing that the circular dated 06.09.2019 provided exceptions for filing appeals despite low tax effect. The Tribunal dismissed the M.A., holding that the circular was not applicable to the case. The revenue's grievance is primarily against the rejection of the M.A., which consequently upholds the dismissal of the original appeals on tax effect.

What were the issues?

1. Whether an appeal is maintainable against an order passed in a rectification application (M.A.)? (Question of law) The revenue contended that the appeal is maintainable against the order passed in the M.A. The respondents (assessees) argued that an appeal is not maintainable against an order passed in an M.A. and relied on the decisions in M/s Mangalam Cement Limited Versus Union of India and CIT Vs. Saroop Tanneries Ltd. The revenue also sought to challenge the dismissal of the original appeal on low tax effect. 2. Whether the circular dated 06.09.2019, which carves out exceptions for filing appeals despite low tax effect, applies to the present case? (Question of mixed law and fact) The revenue argued that the circular dated 06.09.2019 should have been applied by the Tribunal to allow the appeal on merits. The Tribunal held that the circular was not applicable, and the dismissal of the appeal on tax effect was consequential.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:9157-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 50/2020 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Shri Surendra Kumar Patni, 421, Saraogi Mansion, M.i. Road, Jaipur ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 84/2020 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Shri Piyush Swami, A-201, Kewal Marg, Shiv Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 48/2021 Pr. Commissioenr Of Income Tax, Udaipur. ----Appellant Versus Shri Manoj Rathi, B 213-214, Talwandi, Kota. ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 76/2021 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus Shri Manish Swami, A-201, Kewal Marg, Shiv Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur Pan-Bbzps7619L ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.S. Bhati for Mr. Anuroop Singhi Mr. Sandeep Pathak Mr. Anurag Mathur for

[2024:RJ-JP:9157-DB] (2 of 3) [ITA-50/2020] Mr. Parinitto Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka (through VC) Mr. Rohan Chattar Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singhal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 21/02/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (Oral):- 1. These appeals are filed aggrieved of dismissal of appeal for assessment year 2014-2015 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) on low tax effect and subsequent dismissal of the rectification application (hereinafter referred as ‘M.A.’). 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary issue that appeal is not maintainable against the order passed in M.A. and relies upon the decision of M/s Mangalam Cement Limited Versus Union of India reported in (2015) SCC Online Raj 3492 and decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Saroop Tanneries Ltd. reported in (2015) 60 taxmann.com 305. 3. In view of the order passed by this Court today in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 90/2020 learned counsel for appellant seeks liberty to avail remedies to challenge the order passed in M.A. Further submits that the challenge in the appeal to dismissal of the appeal as well. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings. 5. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal without going on the merits, due to low tax effect and by relying upon the circular. The department filed an application for rectification raising an

[2024:RJ-JP:9157-DB] (3 of 3) [ITA-50/2020] issue that in the circular dated 06.09.2019 exceptions were carved out for an appeal to be filed before the Tribunal in spite of low tax effect. The Tribunal dismissed the M.A. relying upon its earlier decision and held that the circular dated 06.09.2019 shall not apply to the case in hand. 6. The grievance of the department is against the rejection of the M.A. The dismissal of appeal on tax effect would be consequential upon the applicability of circular dated 06.09.2019. No substantial question of law arises from order passed by Tribunal in appeal. 7. The appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellants to avail remedies in accordance with law to challenge the order passed in M.A. and to make a prayer for consequential reliefs. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/Himanshu—89,90,92 & 93 Whether Reportable- Yes/No

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →