THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL LUDHIANA vs. M/S THE CITIZEN URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD 506-M MODEL TOWN ROAD JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/421/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117638201705 September 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty as prayed for by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. The reasoning for withdrawal was explicitly stated by the revenue's counsel to be the tax effect being below the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT circulars. The court also noted that since the main case was dismissed, any pending C.M. Application also stood disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue based on monetary limits prescribed by CBDT circulars, with liberty to revive if circumstances change. No specific issue was decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana (the revenue) against M/s The Citizen Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The appeal challenges an order or action from an unspecified authority. The amount in dispute is not mentioned. The procedural history is that the revenue, through 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. They also requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the appellant-revenue, considering the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limits for appeals as per CBDT Circulars No. 3 of 2018 and 17 of 2019. Contentions: Assessee: No arguments are recorded for the assessee as they were not represented. Revenue: The revenue argued that the tax effect involved is less than the monetary limit prescribed 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 revival if anything survives therein.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.421 of 2017 (O&M) 1 352 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.421 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.09.2019 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ...... Appellant versus M/s The Citizen Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., 506-M, Model Town Road, Jalandhar ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL *** Present : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing Counsel and Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, 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. POOJA SHARMA 2019.09.10 17:05 I am the author of this document

ITA No.421 of 2017 (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) JUDGE 05.09.2019 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2019.09.10 17:05 I am the author of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →