THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOHINDER SINGH
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that in view of CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, which stipulates a monetary limit for pursuing appeals, and the tax effect in the present case being Rs.3,98,332/- (which is less than Rs.50 lacs), the Revenue did not want to press the appeal on merits. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was also kept open.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (Revenue) against M/s Mohinder Singh Davinder Singh & Co. (assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the case is Rs.3,98,332/-. The procedural history indicates that the appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed on account of the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not explicitly argue any points on merits. However, the Revenue's decision not to press the appeal implicitly acknowledges the assessee's potential position or the futility of pursuing the appeal given the tax effect. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that the tax effect involved is Rs.3,98,332/-. In light of CBDT Circular No.3/2018, which sets a monetary limit for appeals, and the tax effect being less than Rs.50 lacs, the Revenue does 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.196 of 1999 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.10.2018 **** The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar ...Appellant
VS.
M/s Mohinder Singh Davinder Singh & Co.
... Respondent **** Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surya Kant
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sudip Ahluwalia **** Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, 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 Rs.3,98,332/- 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 Rs.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 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
