THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S POPULAR ENGG. CO.
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal decided not to proceed with the appeal on its merits. Citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which stipulates a monetary threshold for filing appeals, and noting that the tax effect in this case (Rs. 8,30,046/-) was below the Rs. 50 lacs limit, the Revenue stated it did not wish to press the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal 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 expressly kept open.
What were the facts?
This case involves an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II (the Revenue) against an order concerning M/s Popular Engg. Co. (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The appeal challenges a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), though the specific order or action of the ITAT is not detailed. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the appeal by the Revenue. The tax effect involved in the case is stated to be Rs. 8,30,046/-.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide whether to proceed with the appeal on its merits. The Revenue, represented by its counsel, stated that the tax effect involved is Rs. 8,30,046/-. Relying on Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), which sets a monetary limit for appeals, the Revenue indicated that since the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lacs, it did not wish to press the appeal on merits. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the provided text. No specific question of law is framed or discussed in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.216 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.10.2018 **** The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II
...Appellant
VS.
M/s Popular Engg. Co.
... 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 Rs.8,30,046/- 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 →- Arun Aloysius Barnes vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 14 Oct 2026
- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
