PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 vs. M/S ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/758/2018HC DelhiDLHC01133616201817 August 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, upon recording the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue regarding the tax effect being below Rs. 50,00,000/- and in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, disposed of the appeal. The Court explicitly stated that the appeal is disposed of without answering the substantial question of law, and the same is left open. The reasoning is solely based on the Revenue's submission and the applicability of the circular, which provides for the withdrawal or disposal of appeals with a low tax effect without deciding the merits. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be disposed of on the basis of tax effect thresholds specified in administrative circulars, without adjudicating the substantial question of law, if so requested by the revenue and permitted by the circular.

What were the facts?

This appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – 1 (Revenue) against M/s Ansal Landmark Township Ltd. (Assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The order or action under challenge is an appeal before the High Court. The procedural history is that the Revenue's counsel stated that the tax effect in the case is below Rs. 50,00,000/-. This statement was made in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be disposed of without answering the substantial question of law, given the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in Circular No. 3/2018? Revenue's contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, stated that the tax effect in the appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Consequently, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, the appeal may be disposed of without answering the substantial question of law, which should be left open. Assessee's contention: No specific contention is recorded for the Assessee regarding this issue. The judgment only records the Revenue's statement and the Court's subsequent action.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 758/2018

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel for Revenue.

versus

M/S ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arta Trana Panda and Ms. Gargi Sethee, Advocates.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R %

17.08.2018

Counsel for the Revenue/appellants states that the tax effect in the aforesaid case is below Rs. 50,00,000/- and hence in terms of the Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, the appeal may be disposed of without answering the substantial question of law which may be left open. Recording the said statement, the appeal is disposed of without answering the substantial question of law, which is left open.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J. AUGUST 17, 2018 MR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →