PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. MAHAMAYA GENERAL FINANCE CO. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/875/2016HC DelhiDLHC01297954201612 December 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the present appeal without examining the question/issue raised. The court took on record the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant/revenue that the tax effect in the present appeal is below Rs. 50 lakhs. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of Circular No. 3 of 2018. The issue/question of law was expressly left open, and liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case it is found that the matter is covered by an exception. No finding was given on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 3 against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Mahamaya General Finance Co. Ltd. The Revenue's counsel submitted a letter dated 08.12.2018 from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone, stating that the tax effect in the present appeal is below Rs. 50 lakhs. The Revenue's counsel further stated that in light of this, the appeal may be disposed of without answering the issue and question raised, in terms of Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018. The issue/question of law was left open with liberty to revive the appeal if the matter is covered by an exception.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect as per Circular No. 3 of 2018, without deciding the substantive issue. The Revenue argued that since the tax effect in the appeal is below Rs. 50 lakhs, the appeal should be disposed of without examining the issue, in accordance with Circular No. 3 of 2018. The Revenue also stated that the issue/question of law has been left open, with liberty to revive the appeal if the matter is covered by an exception. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee's side regarding the substantive issue, but implicitly, the assessee would have sought dismissal or relief based on the Revenue's concession regarding the tax effect.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 875/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) – 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. St. Counsel versus MAHAMAYA GENERAL FINANCE CO. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Piyush Kaushik, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 12.12.2018 Learned counsel for the Revenue has handed-over copy of letter dated 08.12.2018 received from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone. It is accepted in the said letter that the tax effect in the present appeal is below Rs.50 lakhs. Learned counsel for the appellant/revenue states that since tax effect in the present appeal is below Rs. 50 lakhs, the present appeal may be disposed of without answering/examining the issue and question raised in terms of the Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018. It may be clarified that the issue/question of law has been left open, with liberty to revive the appeal if the matter is covered by an exception. Taking the statement on record, we dispose of the present appeal without examining the question/issue raised, which is left open. Liberty is granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case

it is found that the matter is covered by an exception. SANJIV KHANNA, J. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J. DECEMBER 12, 2018 neelam

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →