COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GURGAON vs. PRITAM SINGH TH L/R GURJIT SINGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/340/2015HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109985201505 September 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the application for condonation of delay of 155 days in re-filing the appeal. Subsequently, the revenue's counsel stated that they had instructions to withdraw the appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No. 17 of 2019. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. Any pending 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 (Central) Gurgaon against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Lt. Sh. Pritam Singh (through his Legal Representative). The appeal was filed with a delay of 155 days, which was condoned by the High Court. The revenue, represented by its counsel, stated that due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 and Circular No. 17 of 2019, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. However, they sought liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed as withdrawn, considering the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals as per CBDT Circulars? The revenue argued that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No. 17 of 2019, the monetary limit for filing appeals has been revised. Since the tax effect in the present case is below this limit, they have instructions to withdraw the appeal. They also requested liberty to revive the appeal if any new facts or circumstances arise. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent's side regarding the withdrawal, other than their presence through counsel.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.340 of 2015 (O&M) 1 332 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-19287-CII-2015 in/and ITA No.340 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.09.2019 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurgaon ...... Appellant versus Lt. Sh.Pritam Singh Through LR Sh.Gurjit Singh H.No.748, Phase 3 B1, Mohali. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL *** Present : Mr. Vivek Sethi, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr. Varun Issar, Junior Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for the respondent.

*** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) CM-19287-CII-2015 1. For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed. Delay of 155 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. ITA No.340 of 2015 2. 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, POOJA SHARMA 2019.09.10 13:43 I am the author of this document

ITA No.340 of 2015 (O&M) 2 he prayed that liberty be granted to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. 3. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 4. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending C.M. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE 05.09.2019 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2019.09.10 13:43 I am the author of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →