CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IN-SITU), LUDHIANA vs. M/S GANGA ACROWOOLS LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITA/229/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084658202231 January 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, as the tax effect of Rs. 83,27,550/- was below the prescribed limit. The counsel further informed the court that the explanation of the respondent (assessee) had been accepted, the Assessing Officer had accepted the taxpayer's version, and the order of the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been nullified. Based on these submissions, the revenue prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal, in compliance with the order dated 05.01.2024 and accepting the prayer for withdrawal, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

What were the facts?

The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (In-Situ), Ludhiana (the appellant/revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order concerning M/s Ganga Acrowools Ltd., Ludhiana (the respondent/assessee). The appeal was filed for assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The dispute arose from an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tax effect in dispute was Rs. 83,27,550/-. The revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was not maintainable in light of CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. The revenue also informed the court that the assessee's explanation had been accepted, the Assessing Officer had accepted the taxpayer's version, and the PCIT's order under Section 263 had been nullified. The revenue therefore prayed for withdrawal of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is maintainable, considering the tax effect of Rs. 83,27,550/- and CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The appeal is not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer has accepted the assessee's explanation, nullifying the PCIT's order under Section 263. Therefore, the revenue seeks to withdraw the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:012778-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(108)

ITA-229-2022 (O&M) Decided on : 31.01.2024 Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (In-Situ), Ludhiana ……Appellant(s)

Versus M/s Ganga Acrowools Ltd., Ludhiana

……Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Mr.Saurabh Kapoor, Sr.Standing Counsel, for the appellant.

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)

In compliance of the order dated 05.01.2024, counsel submits that the present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not maintainable, keeping in view Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes since the tax effect is Rs.83,27,550/- which is below the limit. He has placed on record letter dated 30.01.2024 received from the Income Tax Officer (Hq.)(Judl.), Ludhiana whereby it has been informed that the explanation of the respondent has been accepted. The Assessing Officer has accepted the version of the tax payer and the order of the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been nullified. He accordingly prays for withdrawal of the present appeal. 2.

Dismissed as withdrawn. (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

(LAPITA BANERJI) January 31st, 2024

JUDGE sailesh

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether Reportable :

SAILESH RANJAN 2024.02.02 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →