PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR vs. M/S SURI SONS JALANDHAR
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue's counsel informed the Court that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 and its subsequent amendments. Therefore, the revenue had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The revenue specifically requested liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal should any aspect of the matter survive. The Court granted this liberty as prayed for. Consequently, the main appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and any pending Civil Miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I (the revenue) against M/s Suri Sons (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The appeal challenges an order or action from a lower authority, the details of which are not specified. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned. The procedural history relevant to this judgment is that the revenue's counsel, citing CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 and subsequent amendments, stated that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the revenue is permitted to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circulars? The revenue argued that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than the monetary limit prescribed in Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018, as amended by 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. Based on these circulars, the revenue's counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. No arguments were recorded for the respondent-assessee.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 339-3 ITA No.42 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.09.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I ...... Appellant versus M/s Suri Sons, 15A, Basti Nau, Jalandhar ...... 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. None 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 06.09.2019 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Anuradha 2019.09.11 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
