THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SEMI CONDUCTOR LABORATORY SCL MOHALI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/232/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01011350201903 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted the submission of the Revenue's counsel regarding Circular No. 9/2024, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the department before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. The revised limits are Rs. 60 lakh for ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for Supreme Court, effective from 17.09.2024. The Court accepted the Revenue's contention that the present appeal, in light of these enhanced limits and the fact that it does not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024, should be withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also disposed of as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh) against M/s Semi Conductor Laboratory SCL. The appeal was filed before the High Court. The Revenue's counsel submitted that a Circular No. 9/2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes on 17.09.2024, has enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals by the department before the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court. The revised limits are Rs. 60 lakh for ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for Supreme Court. The circular states that these revised limits are effective from the date of issuance and apply to appeals to be filed, and also to pending appeals before these authorities. The Revenue contended that the present appeal, due to the enhanced monetary limits, may not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024, which deals with cases where appeals are decided on merits regardless of tax effect.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revised monetary limits for filing appeals, as per Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, are applicable to the present appeal filed by the Revenue before the High Court, thereby warranting its withdrawal? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and applicability of CBDT Circulars). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee. The appeal is being decided based on the Revenue's submission regarding the circular. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that in terms of Circular No. 9/2024, the monetary limits for filing appeals have been enhanced. The revised limits are applicable to appeals to be filed and also to pending appeals. The present appeal, filed after the effective date of the circular, does not fall within the exception clause of Circular No. 5/2024, which mandates decisions on merits irrespective of tax effect. Therefore, the Revenue prayed for withdrawal of the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-232-2019 ( 136 IN T

THE COMMIS M/S SEMI CO CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV PR

1.

Counsel Governm Board o limits fo Court a Circular with the b fi af S 1 2 3 (O&M)

Page 1 of 2 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

SSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXE Vs. ONDUCTOR LABORATORY SCL **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJA **** Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Coun for the appellant/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) l for the appellant submits that in t ment of India, Ministry of Finance of Direct Taxes dated 17.09.2024 for filing of the appeals by the de and SLPs before the Supreme C r No.5/2024 has been amended an e purpose to manage litigations: “ 2. As a step towards manag been decided by the Board to revise filing of appeals in Income-tax cases a aforementioned Circular as follows: Sl. No. Appeals/SLPs in Income-tax 1. Before Income Tax Appella 2. Before High Court 3. Before Supreme Court B AND HARYANA AT H ITA-232-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.10.2024 EMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH . . . . Appellant L MOHALI . . . . Respondent EEV PRAKASH SHARMA AY VASHISTH nsel terms of the Circular issued by the e, Department of Revenue, Central bearing No.9/2024, the monetary epartment before the ITAT, High Court has been enhanced and the d following steps have been taken gement of litigation, it has e the monetary limits for as stated in Para 4.1 of the x matters Monetary Limit (Tax effect in Rs.) te Tribunal 60 lakh 2 crore 5 crore

) 4 t t e l y h e n MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.14 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-232-2019 ( r in 1 5 s m 2. The mo Circular filed be the app which h 3. In view not fall prays fo 4. Accordi withdraw 5. All pend

October 03, 202 Mohit goyal 1. Whether 2. Whether (O&M)

Page 2 of 2

3.

Monetary limits given in regard to filing appeal/SLP shall be ncluding those relating to TDS/TCS u 1961 with exceptions as per paras 3. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, where the d shall be taken on merits, without regar monetary limits.”

odifications have come into effe r i.e. 17.09.2024, and therefore s fore the Supreme Court, High Cou eals pending before the Supreme have been directed to be withdrawn of aforesaid Circular No.09/2024 within the exception clause of Ci or withdrawal of the present appeal ingly, we allow the prayer as abov wn. ding applications also stand dismis

(SAN 24 speaking/reasoned?

Y reportable?

Y paragraph 2 above with e applicable to all cases under the Income-tax Act, .1 and 3.2 of Circular No decision to appeal/file SLP rd to the tax effect and the ect from the date of issuance of shall apply to SLPs/appeals to be urt and Tribunal and also apply to Court, High Court and Tribunal, n. dated 17.09.2024, as the case does ircular No.5/2024, learned counsel . ve, and the appeal is dismissed as sed as withdrawn accordingly. NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

f e o , s l s MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.14 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →