PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NOBLE MERCANTILE PVT.LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/717/2015HC DelhiDLHC01239041201503 January 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 dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The primary reasoning was based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which stipulated monetary limits for filing appeals. The Court noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit of ₹20,00,000 and, on a superficial review, none of the cases appeared to fall within any exceptions to the circular. The Court clarified that if, for any reason, any of these appeals fell within an exception, the Revenue was at liberty to seek restoration of the concerned appeals by filing an appropriate application. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals, subject to the aforementioned liberty.

What were the facts?

These appeals by the Revenue concern seven assessment years within a block period. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had passed a composite order, allowing the assessees' appeals. The present appeals before the High Court are related to the ITAT's decision. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had issued Circular No. 21/2015, setting monetary limits for appeals to the ITAT, High Courts, and Supreme Court. Clause 10 of this circular stated that pending appeals below the specified tax limits could be withdrawn or not pressed, and this instruction applied retrospectively to pending appeals. The High Court observed that the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit of ₹20,00,000, and superficially, none appeared to fall within any exceptions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue should withdraw or not press the pending appeals before the High Court, given the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, and the circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessees. However, the context implies that the assessees would likely rely on the CBDT circular to argue for the dismissal of the appeals. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue. However, the fact that the appeals were filed by the Revenue suggests they were seeking to challenge the ITAT's order. The High Court's observation about exceptions implies the Revenue might have argued for the appeals to be considered despite the monetary limit if they fell under an exception.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$-42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49 & 50 % 03.01.2017 Present: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Standing Counsel for Appellants in Item Nos. Nos. 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49 & 50, Ms.Roopali Gupta for Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate for Respondents in Item Nos. 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49 & 50. + ITA Nos.405. 411. 414. 523. 527. 717 8c 726 of 2015 (common order)' This Court had framed a question of law for consideration in these appeals. 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. " These appeals concern seven assessment years reflecting a block period. The ITAT had passed a composite order in all these matters. Furthermore, the ITAT had allowed the assessees's appeal. This Court notices that the tax effect in these appeals is below the prescribed limited of ?20,00,000/-; furtheimore, superficially, none of the case falls within the exception. In any event, it is clarified, if for some reason, these appeals or any of them falls within the exception spelt out in the Circular, it is open to Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

the Revenue to seek restoration of the concerned appeals by an appropriate application. The appeals are dismissed but in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. NAJMIWAZIRI, J. JANUARY 03, 2017 sb

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →