THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON vs. M/S BLACKROCK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/401/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119268201826 August 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay of 2 days in filing the appeal, allowing the application for condonation. Regarding the appeal itself, the Court dismissed it as withdrawn. The revenue's counsel had stated that they had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being less than Rs. One crore, in line with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court granted the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something surviving therein warranted it. The Court also explicitly stated that the legal issue claimed by the revenue was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case, meaning no decision was made on the substantive legal merits of the case.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon (the revenue) against an order concerning M/s Blackrock Services India Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee). The appeal was filed with a delay of 2 days. The revenue sought condonation of this delay. The primary reason for the appeal's withdrawal, as stated by the revenue's counsel, was that the tax effect involved was less than Rs. One crore, aligning with a CBDT Circular dated August 8, 2019. The revenue requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances changed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 2 days in filing the appeal should be condoned? (Question of procedure) Assessee's Arguments: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Arguments: For condonation of delay, the revenue filed an application under Section 260A(2A) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, citing reasons stated in the application. 2. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn based on the tax effect and CBDT Circular? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning administrative policy) Assessee's Arguments: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, as the tax effect was less than Rs. One crore. They prayed for liberty to revive the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CM No. 24506-CII of 2018 in/and

....1.... ITA No. 401 of 2018 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 24506-CII of 2018 in/and ITA No. 401 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.8.2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon .......Appellant Vs. M/s Blackrock Services India Pvt. Ltd. .......Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. ***** AJAY TEWARI

, J. (ORAL)

CM No. 24506-CII of 2018 This is an application under Section 260A (2A) read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 2 days in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA No. 401 of 2018 (O&M) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue has very fairly stated that since the tax effect involved is less than Rs. One crore, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of Circular dated 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. However, he has prayed that liberty be granted to revenue to file an GURPREET SINGH 2019.08.29 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CM No. 24506-CII of 2018 in/and

....2.... ITA No. 401 of 2018 (O&M) application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Further the legal issue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) August 26, 2019

JUDGE Gurpreet Whether speaking /reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable :No GURPREET SINGH 2019.08.29 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →