PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA THE MALL PATIALA

PDF · subscribers

ITA/248/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110444201621 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Bank that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 2 crores, and therefore, as per CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024, the appeal did not survive for adjudication. This position was not disputed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant, who fairly submitted that the appeal be disposed of as not pressed. The Court acknowledged the appellant's reservation that if any cause of action, dispute, or interest still survived, they would seek restoration. Consequently, the Court ordered accordingly, disposing of the appeal as not pressed. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute, and the ratio decidendi is limited to the procedural disposal based on the tax effect threshold and the parties' agreement.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala (appellant) against the State Bank of Patiala (respondent). The specific assessment year(s) and the order or action under challenge are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the matter reached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The core of the proceedings revolves around the tax effect of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal survives for adjudication given the tax effect, in light of CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024 dated September 17, 2024? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention (Respondent-Bank): The learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Bank argued that the tax effect in the present appeal is less than Rs. 2 crores. Therefore, in terms of CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024, the appeal does not survive for adjudication and should be disposed of as not pressed. Revenue's Contention (Appellant-Income Tax Dept.): The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant did not dispute the position stated by the respondent's counsel. He fairly submitted that the appeal be disposed of as not pressed. He also stated that if any cause of action, dispute, or interest still survives, the appellant would move an appropriate application for its restoration and decision on merits.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-248-2016(O&M) Date of decision: 21.01.2025 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala … Appellant Versus State Bank of Patiala … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Standing Counsel, and Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant-Income Tax Dept. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Advocate, for the respondent-Bank. *** ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral) Learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Bank submits, for in terms of circular No.5 of 2024, dated September 17, 2024, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the tax effect in the present appeal being less than Rs.2 crores, the same does not survive for adjudication. The above position is not disputed by learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant. And, as always, he fairly submits that the appeal be disposed of as not pressed. However, in case any cause of action, dispute or interest still survives, the appellant would move appropriate application for its restoration and decision on merits. Ordered accordingly. ( Arun Palli )

Judge 21.01.2025 Rajan ( Sudeepti Sharma ) Judge Whether speaking / reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO RAJAN KUMAR 2025.01.23 11:01 I am approving this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →