PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BATHINDA vs. M/S DHARAMPAL CONTRACTOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/393/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110604201604 September 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty as prayed for by the revenue, allowing them to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. The reasoning for the dismissal was solely based on the revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary threshold for filing appeals, as per the CBDT circulars. The court did not delve into the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn based on monetary limits prescribed by CBDT circulars, with potential for revival under specific conditions. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of as the main case was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda (the revenue) against M/s Dharampal Contractor (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The order or action under challenge is the High Court's decision in ITA No. 393 of 2016 (O&M). The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history is that the revenue's counsel, citing CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 and subsequent amendments, stated they had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. They requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances changed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue is entitled to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars, and if so, whether liberty to revive the appeal should be granted. Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No. 17 of 2019 and Letter No. F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019. Based on these circulars, the revenue sought to withdraw the present appeal, requesting liberty to file an application for its revival if any aspect of the case warranted it.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 393 of 2016 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1242-3 ITA No. 393 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision : 04.09.2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda ... Appellant Versus M/s Dharampal Contractor

....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. Divya Suri, Advocate for Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, 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. POOJA SAINI 2019.09.10 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA No. 393 of 2016 (O&M) 2 3. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending C.M. application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( HARNARESH SINGH GILL ) 04.09.2019 JUDGE pooja saini Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No POOJA SAINI 2019.09.10 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →