Income Tax Office, Ward-2, vs. Fateh Chand Gouniyal

PDF · subscribers
TAXC/28/2015HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01002010201503 September 2019Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court granted permission to the Revenue to withdraw the appeals. The Court noted the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the Appellant (Revenue) regarding the change in litigation policy as per Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated August 8, 2019. The Revenue stated that the amount in dispute did not meet the minimum benchmark set by this circular, and therefore, the appeals were sought to be withdrawn. The Court accepted this submission and accordingly dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law initially raised.

What were the facts?

These are appeals preferred by the Revenue against the verdict of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur Bench. The appeals were filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, raising substantial questions of law. The Revenue sought to withdraw these appeals. The reason for withdrawal was stated to be a change in litigation policy notified by the Government via Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated August 8, 2019. According to this circular, the amount in dispute in these cases did not meet the minimum benchmark set by the new policy. Consequently, the Revenue requested permission to withdraw the appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals preferred by the Revenue raise substantial questions of law under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, warranting consideration by the High Court. Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the appeals involve substantial questions of law. However, subsequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeals based on a change in litigation policy. The Revenue cited Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated August 8, 2019, stating that the amount in dispute in these appeals did not cross the minimum benchmark prescribed by the new policy, thus making it untenable to pursue the litigation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR TAXC No. 28 of 2015 Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ---- Appellant Versus Fateh Chand Gouniyal, D-30 Sector-II, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent with TAXC No. 61 of 2016 Income Tax Officer-2(1) Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus M/s S. N. Agrawal (HUF) C/o Shanti Photostat, Tatyapara, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent with TAXC No. 62 of 2016 Income Tax Officer-2(1) Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus M/s J. N. Agrawal (HUF) C/o Shanti Photostat, Tatyapara, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent TAXC No. 65 of 2016 Income Tax Officer -2(1) Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus M/s V.N. Agrawal (HUF) C/o Shanti Photostat, Tatyapara, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent

2 For Appellant : Shri Amit Chaudhary, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 04.09.2019 1. These appeals have been preferred by the Revenue, on being aggrieved by the verdict passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur (for short, 'ITAT') in ITA No. 111/BLPR/2011 raising / suggesting various questions as involving substantial questions of law under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned standing counsel for the Appellant submits that by virtue of the change of litigation policy notified by the Government as per the Circular bearing No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, the amount in dispute does not cross the hurdle of minimum benchmark and in the said circumstance, the above appeals are sought to be withdrawn. 3. In the said circumstances, permission is granted. These appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- Sd/-

(P. R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →