CIT, LUDHIANA vs. SUNITA MITTAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/13/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095443201116 October 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided the following: 1. The application for condonation of delay of 221 days in re-filing the appeal was allowed. The reasoning was based on the stated reasons in the application, which were accepted by the court. 2. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The revenue's counsel stated they had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits as per CBDT Circulars. The Tribunal granted the liberty as prayed for by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survived therein. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana (the appellant-revenue) against an order concerning Sunita Mittal (the respondent). The appeal was filed for assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The appeal was delayed by 221 days in re-filing, for which an application for condonation of delay was filed and allowed. The revenue, through its counsel, stated that due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 and Circular No. 17 of 2019, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. They sought liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 221 days in re-filing the appeal should be condoned? (Procedural question) 2. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by the appellant-revenue? The appellant-revenue argued that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No. 17 of 2019, and a subsequent letter dated 20.08.2019. Based on these circulars, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. They also requested liberty to revive the appeal if any aspect of it survived. The respondent did not record any arguments in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 13 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 13 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.10.2019 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana .......Appellant Vs. Sunita Mittal .......Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate for the respondent.

***** AJAY TEWARI

, J. (ORAL)

CM-377-CII-2011 This is an application for condonation of delay of 221 days in re-filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 221 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. ITA-13-2011 (O&M) 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 GURPREET SINGH 2019.10.18 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

ITA No. 13 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 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. 2. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 3. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) October 16, 2019

JUDGE Gurpreet Whether speaking /reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No GURPREET SINGH 2019.10.18 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →