COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S C.L. JAIN WOOLLEN MILLS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/313/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095646201109 September 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the appellant-revenue, citing CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, Circular No.17 of 2019, and Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019, stated that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for pursuing appeals. Consequently, the revenue had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The court granted the revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against M/s. C.L.Jain Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. (respondent-assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), though the specific order or action is not detailed. The amount in dispute is also not stated. The procedural history is that the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circulars.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018 and Circular No.17 of 2019, read with Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019. The appellant-revenue argued that the tax effect involved is less than the monetary limit specified in the aforementioned circulars and letters, and therefore, it has instructions to withdraw the present appeal. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. 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 876 ITA No.313 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.09.2019 Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana ...... Appellant versus M/s. C.L.Jain Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Junior Standing counsel for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocat with Mr.Alok Mittal, Advocate for the respondent.

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 09.09.2019 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Anuradha 2019.09.13 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →