PR . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL),GURGAON vs. M/S PRASHANTI SURYA CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/443/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117661201703 September 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The primary reason for dismissal was that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, further amended by Circular No.17 of 2019, read with Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019. The Court deemed it appropriate to dismiss the appeal under these circumstances. The Court explicitly clarified that the dismissal of the appeal should not be construed as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Liberty was granted to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. Any pending C.M. Application was also disposed of.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon (the revenue) against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is M/s Prashanti Surya Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The revenue was represented by no one, while the respondent was represented by senior advocate Mr. K.L. Goyal and advocate Mr. Chetan Sood. The High Court noted that the tax effect involved was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018 and Circular No.17 of 2019.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars? Assessee's Contention: The respondent (assessee) did not explicitly argue any points as the appeal was dismissed based on the revenue's own circulars. However, their presence and representation suggest they were prepared to defend the ITAT's order. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not present any arguments. The High Court's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit in CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No.17 of 2019, and a subsequent letter dated 20.08.2019.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.443 of 2017 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.443 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 03.09.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon ...... Appellant versus M/s Prashanti Surya Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL *** Present :- None for the appellant. Mr. K.L.Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Sood, Advocate for the respondent.

*** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1. We find that 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. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dismiss this appeal. Ordered accordingly. However, liberty is granted to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. 2. It is, further, clarified that the dismissal of the appeal shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, POOJA SHARMA 2019.09.04 16:11 I am the author of this document

ITA No.443 of 2017 (O&M) 2 the legal issue as claimed by the appellant-revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. 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 03.09.2019 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2019.09.04 16:11 I am the author of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →