COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR vs. DEEPAK MITTAL
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the appellant-revenue stated that the tax effect involved is less than the monetary limit prescribed in the relevant CBDT Circulars (Circular No.3 of 2018, amended by Circular No.17 of 2019, and Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019). Consequently, the revenue had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal granted liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should something survive therein. Any pending C.M. (Civil Miscellaneous application) was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar (appellant-revenue) against Shri Deepak Mittal (respondent-assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges an order or action that is not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn, considering the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals by the revenue. The appellant-revenue argued that as per Circular No.3 of 2018, amended by Circular No.17 of 2019, and a subsequent letter dated 20.08.2019, the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than the monetary limit. Therefore, they have instructions to withdraw the appeal. They also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances change. The respondent-assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 317-4 ITA No.303 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.09.2019 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar ...... Appellant versus Shri Deepak Mittal C/o Sonalika Agrl. Industries ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present : Mr. Vivek Sethi, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Varun Issar, Junior Standing counsel for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Shantanu Bnasal, Advocate for the respondent-Assesse.
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is less than the monetary limit as prescribed in Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, further amended vide Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal. However, he prayed that liberty be granted to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. 2. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 3. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending C.M., if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE 06.09.2019 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Anuradha 2019.09.11 15:35 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
