THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 vs. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1338/2018HC DelhiDLHC01100471201827 November 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court took the statement of the Revenue on record and disposed of the present appeals with liberty to the Revenue to ask for revival in case the matter is covered by any exception. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The applications for condonation of delay in re-filing were allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Court did not decide any substantive issue related to income tax law, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural basis due to the tax effect being below the threshold. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of without adjudication.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent assessee is Jindal Photo Ltd. The appeals were filed for assessment years not specified in the judgment. The Revenue sought to dispose of the appeals without examining the issues raised, citing that the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs. The High Court was inclined to condone the delay in re-filing the appeals. The Revenue requested liberty to seek revival of the appeals if the matter was covered by any exception.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals should be disposed of without examining the merits due to a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs, as argued by the Revenue. The Revenue contended that as per their policy, appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold (implied to be Rs. 50 lakhs in this context) should be disposed of without detailed examination, with liberty to seek revival. The assessee did not record any specific arguments on this procedural point, leaving it to the Court. 2. Whether the delay in re-filing the appeals should be condoned. The Revenue sought condonation of delay, and the assessee left the decision to the Court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

U- $~50, 51and54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA1337/2018 + 1^1338/2018 + ITA 1341/2018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 Appellant Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. St. Counsel versus JINDAL PHOTO LTD. Respondent Through: Mr.Rohit Jain with Mr.Aniket D. f

Agrawal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI ORDER % 27.11.2018 CM AFP No.49254/2018 in ITA 1337/2018 CM APP No.49256/2018 in ITA 1338/2018 CM APP No.49259/2018 in ITA 1341/2018 Allowed, subjeet to all just exceptions. The applications stand disposed of. CM APP No. 49255/2018 in ITA 1337/2018 CM APP No. 49257/2018 in ITA 1338/2018 CM APP No. 49260/2018 in ITA 1341/2018 Having heard the counsel, we are inclined to condone the delay in re filing of the appeal, as counsel for the respondent-asessee has left it to the Court. Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:09.10.2024 15:41 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

The applications stand disposed of. ITA 1337/2018 ITA 1338/2018 ITA 1341/2018 Learned counsel for the appellant -Revenue submits that the tax effect in the present appeal is below Rs. 50 lakhs. Hence, the appeal may be disposed of without examining the issue/question raised, which may be left open. Liberty may be granted to the Revenue to ask for revival in case the matter is covered by any exception. We take the statement on record and dispose of the present appeal with liberty, as prayed for. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on merits. SANJiy KMANNA, J. T- - ( ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANl, J. NOVEMBER 27, 2018 neelam 4

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →