COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD. vs. MANGAL SINGH
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the appeal in view of the circulars cited by the respondent, keeping the questions of law open. The court noted the respondent's contention that the appeal should be withdrawn due to low tax effect, supported by the provided demand notice. The court granted liberty to the appellant to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The reasoning was based on the applicability of the CBDT circulars regarding low tax effect. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal, with liberty to revive. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad (appellant) against an order dated 27.11.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. The order pertained to assessment years from 01.04.1987 to 18.02.1997. The respondent, Mangal Singh (HUF), contended that the appeal should be withdrawn by the appellant due to a low tax effect, citing Circular No.3 of 2018 and subsequent amendments. The appellant's counsel requested time, while the respondent provided a demand notice supporting their contention. The High Court considered these submissions.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by the appellant in view of low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No.17 of 2019 and Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019 (question of fact and law, turning on the interpretation and applicability of the circulars). Assessee's Contention: The appeal should be withdrawn by the appellant in view of the low tax effect, as per the cited circulars and letter. The respondent relied on Circular No.3 of 2018, Circular No.17 of 2019, and Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned counsel for the appellant stated he needed time, and no specific argument against withdrawal was recorded.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITA No.561 of 2010 [1] 1045 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.561 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.02.2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Appellant Versus Mangal Singh (HUF) Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant-department. Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate for the respondent. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) [1] This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 27.11.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in I.T.(SS) A. No.25/Del/2009 for the assessment years from 01.04.1987 to 18.02.1997. [2] The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that this case would have to be withdrawn by the appellant in view of low tax effect as per Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, further amended vide Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019. PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.19 08:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh
ITA No.561 of 2010 [2] [3] Learned counsel for the appellant states that he needs time. [4] Learned counsel for the respondent has handed over a copy of the demand notice which, prima facie, bears out his contention. [5] In the circumstances, the appeal is disposed of in view of the aforesaid circular, keeping the questions of law open. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to file an application for revival of appeal, if something survives therein. [6] Since the main case is disposed of, the pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE February 17, 2020
pankaj baweja
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.19 08:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
