PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3, NEW DELHI vs. JAKHOTIA PLASTICS PVT.LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/727/2017HC DelhiDLHC01332480201707 February 2020Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO FULL BENCHES2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the tax effect in these appeals was below the stipulated monetary limit. Consequently, in terms of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 8th August, 2019, the appeals were treated as not pressed. The court's reasoning was based on the explicit instruction within the circular regarding appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling within the monetary limits specified by the CBDT for non-prosecution should be disposed of accordingly, without delving into the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals as not pressed.

What were the facts?

These are two appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3, New Delhi, against the respondent, Jakhotia Plastics Pvt. Ltd. The appeals pertain to assessment years not specified in the judgment. The core of the matter is an order or action under challenge, but the specific nature of this challenge and the authority that passed the original order are not detailed. The procedural history is limited to the fact that these appeals have reached the High Court. The tax effect of the appeals is stated to be below the stipulated monetary limit.

What were the issues?

The High Court was presented with appeals concerning tax matters where the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The primary question before the court was whether these appeals, given their low tax effect, should be entertained on merits. The appellant (Revenue) likely sought to pursue these appeals, while the respondent (Assessee) may have argued for their dismissal based on the CBDT circular. The judgment does not explicitly frame these as numbered questions of law or mixed law and fact, nor does it detail specific arguments or authorities cited by either side beyond the reference to the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~1 and 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ITA 727/2017

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3, NEW

DELHI

..... Appellant

Through: Mr.Abhishek Malhotra, Sr.Standing

Counsel with Mr.Pratyaksh Gupta and

Ms.Nupur Sharma, Advocates.

versus

JAKHOTIA PLASTICS PVT. LTD.

..... Respondents

Through: Dr.Rakesh Gupta with Ms.Monika

Ghai, Mr.Rohit K.Gupta and Ms.Tani

Malik, Advocates.

ITA 728/2017

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3, NEW

DELHI

..... Appellant

Through: Mr.Abhishek Malhotra, Sr.Standing

Counsel with Mr.Pratyaksh Gupta and

Ms.Nupur Sharma, Advocates.

versus

JAKHOTIA PLASTICS PVT. LTD.

..... Respondents

Through: Dr.Rakesh Gupta with Ms.Monika

Ghai, Mr.Rohit K.Gupta and Ms.Tani

Malik, Advocates.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA

O R D E R %

07.02.2020

The tax effect being below the stipulated monetary limit, the appeals are treated as not pressed in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 8th August, 2019 and are disposed of as such.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

A.K. CHAWLA, J.

FEBRUARY 07, 2020 tr

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →