Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii vs. Regal Iron And Steel Works
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal allowed the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal made by the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the Tribunal explicitly stated that the question of law is left open. This implies that while the appeal itself was disposed of without a decision on its merits due to the withdrawal, the underlying legal issue remains undecided and can be raised in future proceedings. The reasoning for the withdrawal is not elaborated upon, other than the counsel's prayer. No specific findings were made on any substantive legal issues.
What were the facts?
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore (Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was filed despite the monetary limits for filing appeals stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, as amended by subsequent circulars dated 20/08/2018 and 08/08/2019, and a clarificatory circular dated 6th September 2019. These circulars provide exceptions to the monetary limits for appeals concerning specific issues, such as constitutional validity, illegal board orders, revenue audit objections, undisclosed foreign assets, information from law enforcement agencies, and pending prosecution. The Revenue's counsel subsequently prayed for the withdrawal of the present appeal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the present appeal, filed by the Revenue, is maintainable despite the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and its subsequent amendments, considering the nature of the issues involved. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The appeal was withdrawn by the Revenue. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, prayed for the withdrawal of the present appeal. The grounds for withdrawal are not explicitly detailed, but the context suggests it was filed under the exceptions provided by the CBDT circulars for contesting adverse judgments on merits, irrespective of the tax effect.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE D.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA AND HON'BLE MR. SHAILENDRA SHUKLA, JJ INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 14 / 2019 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. REGAL IRON AND STEEL WORKS * * * * * O R D E R (31/10/2019) PER : S. C. SHARMA, J :- The present appeal has been filed u/S. 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax Indore against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued a circular No. 3/2018 fixing the monetary limit for filing of appeals before the High Courts and before the Supreme Court. However, certain appeals are to be decided on merits. Paragraph 10 of the Circular dated 11/07/2018 reads as under: Para 10 of the Circular dated 11/7/2018 reads as under : 10. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect : (a) Where the Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge, or (b) Where Board's order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or (c) Where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, or (d) Where the addition relates to undisclosed foreign assets / bank accounts. That the circular no. 3/2018 was further revised by the circular dated 20/08/2018 and paragraph 10 was amended as under : 3. Para 10 of the said Circular provides that adverse judgments relating to the issues enumerated in the said para should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the --- 2 --- monetary limits specified in para 3 thereof or there is no tax effect. Para 10 of the Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11/7/2018 is hereby amended as under: 10. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect : (a) Where the Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge, or (b) Where Board's order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or (c) Where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, or (d) Where the addition relates to undisclosed foreign income / undisclosed foreign assets (including financial assets) / undisclosed foreign bank account. (e) Where addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI / ED / DRI / SFIO / Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). (f) Cases where prosecution has been filed by the Department and is pending in the Court. Thereafter another circular was issued on 08/08/2019 and the monetary limit was enhanced to Rs. 1.00 crore in respect of High Court. A further clarificatory circular was issued on 6th September, 2019 and the Department has been permitted, irrespective of valuation, to file an appeal on merits in cases involved in organized tax evasion activity (Circular dated 6th September, 2019). The present appeal is covered under the circular issued by the Department and the learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the present appeal. The prayer is allowed. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the question of law is left open. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) J U D G E KR Digitally signed by Kamal Rathor Date: 2019.11.04 17:14:34 +05'30'
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026