PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) GURGAON vs. MOHINDER KAUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/112/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117296201705 September 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the submission by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars. The revenue was granted liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the respondent was also allowed as prayed for and dismissed as withdrawn, as the respondent did not wish to press it in light of the order in the main appeal. Any pending C.M. Application was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal, ITA No. 112 of 2017, was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon, against Smt. Mohinder Kaur, legal heir of late Sh. Tranjit Singh. The assessment years are not specified. The appeal challenges an order or action by an unspecified authority. The tax effect involved was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No. 17 of 2019. A cross-objection, XOBJC No. 133-CII-2017, was also filed by the respondent. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be withdrawn, considering the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circulars No. 3 of 2018 and 17 of 2019, and Letter No. F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019? The revenue argued that due to the low tax effect, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal, seeking liberty to revive it if circumstances changed. 2. Whether the cross-objection filed by the respondent should be withdrawn? The respondent, in view of the order passed in the main appeal, stated they did not wish to press the cross-objection and sought permission to withdraw it.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.112 of 2017 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH XOBJC No.133-CII-2017 in/and ITA No.112 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.09.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon ...... Appellant versus Smt. Mohinder Kaur, Legal heir of Late Sh.Tranjit Singh, H.No.694, Sec.8 Chandigarh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL *** Present :- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Singh Bisht, Advocate for the cross objector-respondent.

*** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) ITA No.112 of 2017 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is less than the monetary limit as prescribed in Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, further amended vide Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal. However, he prayed that liberty be granted to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. POOJA SHARMA 2019.09.10 13:15 I am the author of this document

ITA No.112 of 2017 (O&M) 2 2. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. XOBJC No.133-CII-2017 3. In view of the order passed in the main case, learned counsel for the cross objector-respondent states that he does not want to press the the cross objection and prays for permission to withdraw the same. 4. Allowed as prayed for. Dismissed as withdrawn. 5. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending C.M. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE 05.09.2019 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2019.09.10 13:15 I am the author of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →