PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDMAN HOLDING LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/354/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110562201615 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, had enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals by the department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court. The Court was informed that the present appeal, ITA-354-2016, did not fall within any exceptions to Circular No. 5/2024. Consequently, the Revenue's counsel prayed for the withdrawal of the appeal. The Court found merit in this submission and allowed the prayer. All pending applications were also disposed of accordingly. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The appeal, ITA-354-2016, was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana (Revenue) against M/s Vardhman Holdings Ltd., Ludhiana (Assessee). The case was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, had issued Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court. This amendment was intended to manage litigation. The circular stipulated new monetary limits for appeals based on the tax effect. The Revenue's counsel further stated that the present appeal did not fall within any exceptions to Circular No. 5/2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal, ITA-354-2016, is to be withdrawn in light of Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, which enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals by the department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court. Assessee's Contention: The Assessee's counsel, through their submissions, implicitly supported the withdrawal of the appeal, given the context of the Revenue's prayer and the applicability of the circular. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the Assessee regarding the merits of the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel argued that Circular No. 9/2024, effective from 17.09.2024, revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. They contended that the present appeal did not fall within any exceptions provided in Circular No. 5/2024 and therefore, the appeal should be withdrawn. The Revenue relied on Circular No. 9/2024 and Circular No. 5/2024.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-354-2016 ( 288-25

IN TH

PR. COMMIS

M/S VARDH CORAM: H

H Present: M

M M M

SANJEEV P

1.

Counse No.9/20 Ministr Taxes, before Court amende manage (O&M)

Page 1 of 3 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR

*** SSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, Vs.

HMAN HOLDINGS LTD., LUDH **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALO ****

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing for the appellant/Revenue. Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate w Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate an Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate for the respondent. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) el for the appellant submits that 024 dated 17.09.2024 issued ry of Finance, Department of Re the monetary limits for filing o the ITAT, High Court and SLP have been enhanced and the ed and following steps have b e litigations:

AB AND HARYANA AT RH ITA-354-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.10.2024 , LUDHIANA . . . . Appellant HIANA . . . . Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA OK JAIN g Counsel with nd ) in terms of the Circular bearing by the Government of India, evenue, Central Board of Direct f the appeals by the department Ps/Appeals before the Supreme Circular No.5/2024 has been been taken with the purpose to

) 4 t t g , t t e n o PARUL 2024.10.18 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

ITA-354-2016 ( h fo 4 S 1 2 3 r in A C to to 2. The mo Circula be filed apply t and Tri 3. In view does n learned 4. Accord as with (O&M)

Page 2 of 3 “ 2. As a step towards man has been decided by the Board to re for filing of appeals in Income-tax 4.1 of the aforementioned Circular

Sl. No. Appeals/SLPs in Income-t 1. Before Income

Tax Tribunal 2. Before High Court 3. Before Supreme Court

3.

Monetary limits given in p regard to filing appeal/SLP shall be ncluding those relating to TDS/TC Act, 1961 with exceptions as per Circular No 5/2024 dated 15.03.20 o appeal/file SLP shall be taken on o the tax effect and the monetary li

odifications have come into effe ar i.e. 17.09.2024, and therefore d before the Supreme Court, Hi to the appeals pending before t ibunal, which have been directed w of aforesaid Circular No.09/202 not fall within the exception d counsel prays for withdrawal of dingly, we allow the prayer as ab drawn.

nagement of litigation, it evise the monetary limits cases as stated in Para as follows: tax matters Monetary Limit (Tax effect in Rs.) Appellate 60 lakh 2 crore 5 crore paragraph 2 above with e applicable to all cases CS under the Income-tax r paras 3.1 and 3.2 of 024, where the decision n merits, without regard imits.” ect from the date of issuance of e shall apply to SLPs/appeals to gh Court and Tribunal and also the Supreme Court, High Court d to be withdrawn. 24 dated 17.09.2024, as the case clause of Circular No.5/2024, f the appeal No.ITA-354-2016. bove, and the appeal is dismissed

f o o t e , d PARUL 2024.10.18 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

ITA-354-2016 ( 5. All pen

October 15, 20 parul 1. Wheth 2. Wheth (O&M)

Page 3 of 3 nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ 024 her speaking/reasoned?

her reportable?

posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(ALOK JAIN) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

PARUL 2024.10.18 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →