CIT, KARNAL vs. M/S AMAR NATH RAJ BAHADUR OLD ANAJ MANDI KAITHAL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the instant appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel had stated that the tax effect was ₹13,28,800/-, which is below the ₹50 lacs threshold mentioned in the circular. Therefore, the Revenue did not want to press the appeal on merits. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances change, as prayed for by the appellant's counsel. The question of law was also kept open. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal (Revenue) against M/s Amar Nath Raj Bahadur (assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The order or action under challenge is the appeal itself, which the Revenue sought to withdraw. The amount in dispute, referred to as the tax effect, is ₹13,28,800/-. The procedural history involves the Revenue's decision not to press the appeal on merits due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in a recent CBDT Circular.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Revenue should be permitted to withdraw the appeal on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee's counsel, Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate, did not explicitly argue on merits. The judgment records no specific arguments from the assessee's side regarding the merits of the case. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's counsel, Mr. Yogesh Putney, stated that the tax effect involved in the case is ₹13,28,800/-. In light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a threshold for pursuing appeals, and given that the tax effect is less than ₹50 lacs, the Revenue did not wish to press the appeal on merits.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.121 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.10.2018 **** Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal
...Appellant
VS.
M/s Amar Nath Raj Bahadur
... Respondent **** Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surya Kant
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sudip Ahluwalia **** Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J. (Oral)
(1) Learned counsel for Revenue states that the tax effect involved in this case is `13,28,800/- and in view of the recent Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, the tax effect being less than `50 lacs, he does not want to press this appeal on merits. (2) In view of the CBDT Circular, the instant appeal is dismissed as not pressed. As prayed for by learned counsel for the appellant, liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal, if need be, in the changed circumstances. The question of law is also kept open.
(Surya Kant) Judge
03.10.2018 vishal shonkar (Sudip Ahluwalia) Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes/No 2. Whether reportable?
Yes/No V VISHAL 2018.10.06 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
