SUNNY JACOB 916 JEWELLERY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the appeal would stand dismissed as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) 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 the ground of the appeal not being pressed. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal can be dismissed as not pressed if the appellant so chooses, particularly when opting for an alternative resolution mechanism like an Amnesty Scheme. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to pursue the Amnesty Scheme as legally available. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on the assessee's request.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s Sunny Jacob 916 Jewellery, represented by its Managing Partner, Shri. Sunny Jacob, filed an Income Tax Appeal (ITA No. 71 of 2019) before the High Court of Kerala. This appeal was filed against an order passed by the ITAT, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 344/2016 dated October 10, 2018. The respondent in the appeal was the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Cochin. The appeal was listed for final hearing on April 30, 2021.
What were the issues?
The High Court had to decide whether the appeal filed by the assessee should be dismissed. The assessee's counsel submitted that the appeal was not being pressed because the client had been advised to avail an applicable Amnesty Scheme. The revenue did not present any arguments as the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee. The core issue was the disposition of the appeal given the assessee's decision not to press it.
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.71 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 344/2016 DATED 10-10-2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/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 SRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT/APPELLAT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-682 018 SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA.No.71 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 →- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
