COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD vs. ANJU TAYAL PROP.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/540/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093485201010 February 2016Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, took up the main appeal for hearing. The revenue's counsel stated that they had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being ₹16,27,559/-, which was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits, and the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad (appellant/revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal concerned assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute, or tax effect, was ₹16,27,559/-. The procedural history involves an application filed by the revenue under Section 260A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking dismissal of the appeal in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The revenue's counsel stated they had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed in the circular.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, given the tax effect of ₹16,27,559/- which is below the prescribed monetary limit of ₹20 lacs. Assessee's contention: The assessee's counsel did not dispute that the tax effect was less than ₹20 lacs and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel stated that due to the tax effect of ₹16,27,559/-, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, dated 10.12.2015. They also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

260A(7)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.540 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.540 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: February 10, 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant Versus Anju Tayal

...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG Present : Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parvesh Saini, Advocate for the respondent.

***** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) CM No.26869-CII-2015 This is an application filed under Section 260A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying that the appeal be dismissed in view of circular No.21 dated 10.12.2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. Copy of which has been annexed as Annexure R-1. The tax effect involved is ` 16,27,559/- which is less than the monetary limit prescribed thereunder. Notice of this application was issued to counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the tax effect is less than ` 20 lacs and prays for withdrawal of the appeal. Accordingly, CM stands disposed of. Main case With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main appeal is taken up for hearing today. DINESH BANSAL 2016.02.15 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

ITA No.540 of 2010 -2- Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 16,27,559/- he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of the circular No. 21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, he prayed that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is, however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)

JUDGE (RAJ RAHUL GARG February 10, 2016

JUDGE Dinesh Bansal DINESH BANSAL 2016.02.15 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →