M/S.SUNNY JACOB 916 JEWELLERY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/65/2019HC KeralaKLHC01028709201930 April 2021Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala held that the appeal would stand dismissed as being not pressed. This decision was based on the submission made by the assessee's counsel that the appeal was not being pressed due to the assessee's intention to avail an applicable Amnesty Scheme. The Court explicitly stated that the dismissal was on account of the appeal not being pressed. The reasoning is straightforward: if an appellant withdraws or does not press their appeal, the court will dismiss it on that ground. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal not pressed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. The operative direction is that the appeal stands dismissed as not pressed. The Court also granted liberty to the appellant to pursue the Amnesty Scheme as legally available. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

This appeal, bearing No. 65 of 2019, was filed by the assessee, M/s. Sunny Jacob 916 Jewellery, against an order dated October 10, 2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. The appeal was preferred before the High Court of Kerala. The assessee is represented by its Managing Partner, Shri. Sunny Jacob. The respondent is the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Cochin. The assessment years are not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute is also not recorded. The procedural history leading to this appeal involves the order of the ITAT being challenged.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ITAT dated 10-10-2018 is to be dismissed as not pressed? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) submitted that the appeal is not being pressed because the client has been advised to avail an applicable Amnesty Scheme. The assessee relies on the advisability of pursuing the Amnesty Scheme as the basis for not pressing the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the dismissal of the appeal. However, the revenue is the respondent in the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 10TH VAISAKHA, 1943 ITA.No.65 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 343/2016 DATED 10-10-2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: M/S.SUNNY JACOB 916 JEWELLERY PAN AAZFS 6972L, FORT MANOR, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI. SUNNY JACOB. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.NISHA JOHN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-682 018 SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA.No.65 OF 2019 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 30th day of April 2021 The learned counsel for the appellant submits that this appeal is not being pressed on account of the fact that his client has been advised to avail the applicable Amnesty Scheme. In the afore circumstances, this appeal will stand dismissed as being not pressed; however, leaving open all liberty to the appellant including to pursue the Amnesty Scheme as is legally available.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.R.ANITHA JUDGE Stu

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →