THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE INSTALLMENT SUPPLY CO

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1000/2005HC DelhiDLHC01058842200520 September 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Delhi held that the appeal would fail to meet the pecuniary limit in view of CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated September 17, 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. The court's reasoning was solely based on the non-compliance with the updated pecuniary limits for appeals. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the specified monetary threshold, as defined by CBDT circulars, are liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction or on grounds of low tax effect. No specific relief was granted to either party as the appeal was dismissed on a procedural ground. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) against an order concerning The Installment Supply Co. (Respondent). The appeal was heard by the High Court of Delhi. The primary reason for the court's decision was the applicability of a Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 9/2024, dated September 17, 2024. This circular pertains to the pecuniary limits for filing appeals. The court noted that the appeal in question failed to meet these specified pecuniary limits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal meets the pecuniary limit as stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, thereby determining the High Court's jurisdiction to hear the matter. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (The Installment Supply Co.). Revenue's Contention: The revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) argued that the appeal should be heard. However, the court found that the appeal failed to meet the pecuniary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, which was issued shortly before the hearing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1000/2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms. Naincy Jain and Ms. Madhavi Shukla, JSCs. versus THE INSTALLMENT SUPPLY CO .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi, Ms. Hurnal Syali Nagi, Mr. Tarun Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R %

20.09.2024 1. Having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusal of our record, we find that the appeal would fail to meet the pecuniary limit in view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17 September 2024. 2. Consequently, the appeal shall stand dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. YASHWANT VARMA, J. RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 vp This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 00:25:28

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →