THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOETZE INDIA LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/125/2005HC DelhiDLHC01059081200501 March 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal could not be prosecuted and was no longer maintainable because the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of ₹20,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The court reasoned that the circular, which applied retrospectively to pending appeals, mandated that appeals below the specified tax limits should be withdrawn or not pressed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. However, the court clarified that if the Assessing Officer identified any exception under the circular, the Revenue could seek restoration of the appeal through an appropriate application. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on the basis of the circular.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) against M/s Goetze India Ltd. (Respondent). The appeal was filed before the High Court of Delhi. The judgment notes that the appeal was pending and that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had issued Circular No. 21/2015 on December 10, 2015, which specified monetary limits for preferring appeals. Clause 10 of this circular stated that pending appeals below the specified tax limits could be withdrawn or not pressed. The High Court observed that the tax effect in the present appeal was below the prescribed limit of ₹20,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal, pending before the High Court, is maintainable given the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee. However, the court's observation implies that the assessee would likely rely on the CBDT circular to argue for the dismissal of the appeal due to the low tax effect. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the revenue is the appellant, and its continued prosecution of the appeal suggests an intention to pursue the matter despite the circular, or perhaps an argument that the circular does not apply or that an exception exists.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 125/2005

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.

versus

M/S GOETZE INDIA LTD.

..... Respondent

Through:

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R %

01.03.2017

This Court had framed a question of law for consideration in this appeal. Given its pendency vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) spelt out the monetary limits beyond which appeals could be preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), High Courts and SLP before the Supreme Court respectively. Clause 10 of the Circular reads as below:- “10. This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”

This Court notices that the tax effect i.e. upon the assessed income, is

below the prescribed limit of `20,00,000/-. The present appeal cannot be, therefore, prosecuted and is no longer maintainable. It is, however, clarified that in the event, the Assessing Officer discerns any exception in terms of the said Circular, it is open to the Revenue to seek restoration of the concerned appeal by an appropriate application. The appeal is dismissed but in the above terms.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J MARCH 01, 2017 /vikas/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →