PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-5 vs. M/S KANE PACKAGING PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/940/2017HC DelhiDLHC01445822201711 September 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeals, as the respondent-assessee did not oppose the applications. The Court then disposed of the appeals without answering the substantial questions of law raised. This decision was based on the appellant-Revenue's statement that the tax effect in the appeals was below Rs. 50 lacs and their request for disposal in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018. The Court clarified that the issues/questions of law raised in the appeals were left open and not decided on merits. No operative directions for deletion or remand were issued, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-5 (Revenue) against M/s Kaane Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (assessee). The assessment years are not specified. The appeals challenge orders passed by an authority below the High Court. The procedural history involves applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeals, which were not opposed by the assessee and were allowed. The Revenue then stated that the tax effect in the appeals was below Rs. 50 lacs and requested disposal in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, without answering the substantial questions of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing and re-filing the appeals should be condoned? (Question of procedure) Assessee's contention: The assessee did not oppose the applications for condonation of delay. Revenue's contention: The Revenue filed the applications for condonation of delay. 2. Whether the appeals should be disposed of without answering the substantial questions of law, based on the tax effect and Circular No. 3/2018? (Question of procedure and administrative policy) Assessee's contention: The assessee did not oppose the request for disposal based on the tax effect. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lacs and requested disposal in terms of Circular No. 3/2018, without answering the substantial questions of law, leaving the issues open.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

J * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos. 939/2017 & 940/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-5 Appellant Through Mr. DeepakAnand, Advocate. versus M/S KAANE PACKAGING PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Manu K. Giri & Mr. K.N. Ahuja, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR ORDER % 11.09.2018 CM Nos. 39920-39921/2017 in ITA No. 939/2017 CM Nos. 39923-39924/2017 in ITA No. 940/2017 Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee does not oppose the applications for condonation of delay of one day in filing and six days m re filing the appeals. In view of the concession given, delay in filing and re filing are condoned. The applications are allowed. ITA Nos. 939/2017 & 940/2017 Learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue states that tax effect in the present appeals is below Rs.50 lacs and hence in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11^*^ July, 2018, the appeals may be disposed of, without answering the substantial questions of law raised and framed. It may be clarified that the issue/questions raised are left open. 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

r I Taking the statement on record, we dispose of the present appeals, without answering the substantial questions of law raised. We clarify that the issue/questions oflaw raised are left open. SANJIV KHANNA, J. \^^eSkhar,j. CHAND SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 VKR C9-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →