THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PURNIMA BERI
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as not pressed. The reasoning provided is based on the submission by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the tax effect involved in the case is ₹3,03,120/-, which is less than ₹50 lacs. This amount falls within the monetary limit specified in Circular No. 3/2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. Consequently, the Revenue stated it did not want to press the appeal on merits. The Tribunal, in view of the CBDT Circular and the Revenue's submission, dismissed the appeal. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed, and the question of law was kept open.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I (Revenue) against Purnima Beri (assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges an order passed by an authority below, the details of which are not provided. The amount in dispute, referred to as the tax effect, is ₹3,03,120/-. The procedural history is that the Revenue, through its counsel, stated that the tax effect is below the threshold stipulated in Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, and therefore, did not wish to press the appeal on merits.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed in light of the tax effect being below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018? (Question of procedure/policy) Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded. Revenue: The tax effect involved in the case is ₹3,03,120/-. In view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which states that appeals with a tax effect less than ₹50 lacs should not be pressed, the Revenue does not wish to press this appeal on merits.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.215 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.10.2018 **** Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I
...Appellant
VS.
Purnima Beri
... Respondent **** Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surya Kant
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sudip Ahluwalia **** Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Pankaj Jain, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J. (Oral)
(1) Learned counsel for Revenue states that the tax effect involved in this case is `3,03,120/- 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 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
