THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. RAVINDRA SHANTILAL PEETY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/59/2013HC BombayHCBM03011941201326 April 2022Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. MEHARE3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Court accepted the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellants-revenue that the issues involved were covered by the judgment of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 19 of 2013. The Court also accepted the joint submission that no reasons were required to be recorded. Following the reasoning in the judgment delivered on April 22, 2022, in identical matters (Income Tax Appeal No. 19 of 2013), the appeals were dismissed because the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed in the earlier circulars. Consequently, the substantial questions of law formulated by the Court while admitting these appeals were not answered. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Revenue against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue's counsel acknowledged that the issues in these appeals were covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 19 of 2013. Both parties agreed that no specific reasons were required to be recorded by the Court. The Court noted that in identical matters decided on April 22, 2022, the appeals were dismissed due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit in earlier circulars. Consequently, the substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admitting these appeals were not answered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue should be dismissed on the ground of tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed in the circulars, thereby not answering the substantial questions of law. (Mixed question of law and fact, relating to Circulars and Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue's counsel conceded that the issues were covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 19 of 2013. The counsel for both parties stated that the Court was not required to record any reasons. The Revenue did not press the appeals on merits, implicitly accepting the dismissal based on tax effect as per the precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 924-ITA.23-2013+1.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 924 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.23 OF 2013 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD VERSUS SURENDRA SHANTILAL PEETY AND 925 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.57 OF 2013 WITH ITA/59/2013 WITH ITA/58/2013 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD VERSUS RAVINDRA SHANTILAL PEETY ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sharma Alok M. Adv. for Respondent : Mr. R. N. Chavan h/f Mr. V. A. Bagadiya. … CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA, AND

S. G. MEHARE, JJ. DATE : 26.04.2022 PER COURT

:- 1. By these appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellants-revenue have impugned the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants-revenue does not dispute that the issue involved in these appeals are covered by

2 924-ITA.23-2013+1.odt the judgment delivered by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.19 of 2013. The learned counsel appearing for both the parties state that this Court is not required to record any reasons. Statement is accepted. 3. By the judgment delivered by this Court on 22.04.2022, in identical matters, this Court has dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants-revenue on the ground that the tax effect involved in those bunch of appeals being less than the monetary limit as prescribed in the earlier circulars dismissed the appeals and did not answer the substantial questions of law formulated by this Court while admitting these appeals. 4. For the reasons recorded by this Court in the judgment delivered in Income Tax Appeal No.19 of 2013 in case of the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Surendra Shantilal Peety and other connected matters, both these appeals are dismissed in view of the tax effect involved in these appeals being less than the monetary limit as prescribed in the earlier circulars issued from time to time. Thus, this Court is not required to answer any substantial questions of law formulated by this Court while admitting these appeals by this Court. There shall be no order

3 924-ITA.23-2013+1.odt as to costs. (S. G. MEHARE, J.) (R. D. DHANUKA, J.) … vmk/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →