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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/134/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117319201705 September 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. This decision was based on the revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, as per the relevant CBDT circulars. Regarding the cross-objection, the Court allowed it as prayed for, and consequently, dismissed it as withdrawn. The reasoning for dismissing the main appeal was solely based on the administrative instruction from the CBDT regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, rather than a decision on the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a low tax effect, as defined by CBDT circulars, can be withdrawn by the revenue.

What were the facts?

The appeal, ITA No.134 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 year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018 and subsequent amendments. A cross-objection, XOBJC No.132-CII-2017, was also filed by the respondent. The High Court heard the matter on 05.09.2019.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed as withdrawn, considering the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars? 2. Whether the cross-objection filed by the respondent should be allowed as withdrawn? Assessee's Contentions: The respondent's counsel stated that they do not wish to press the cross-objection and prayed for permission to withdraw it. Revenue's Contentions: The appellant-revenue's counsel stated that due to the tax effect being less than the monetary limit prescribed in CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No.17 of 2019 and Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019, they have instructions to withdraw the appeal. They prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.134 of 2017 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH XOBJC No.132-CII-2017 in/and ITA No.134 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.134 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 13:43 I am the author of this document

ITA No.134 of 2017 (O&M) 2 2. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. XOBJC No.132-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 13:43 I am the author of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →