PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 CHANDIGARH vs. MRS.BIMAL SURI SCF 1 HIGH SOCIETY
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue's counsel stated that due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits in CBDT Circulars, they wished to withdraw the appeal. The court granted liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. The court also noted that since the main case was dismissed, any pending C.M. Application also stood disposed of. The ratio is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue based on monetary limits prescribed by CBDT circulars, with liberty for revival in certain circumstances.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -I, Chandigarh (the appellant-revenue) against Mrs. Bimal Suri (the respondent). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The order or action under challenge is the appeal itself, filed before the High Court. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history is that the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal can be withdrawn by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018 and Circular No.17 of 2019. Contentions: Assessee: No arguments are recorded for the respondent-assessee. Revenue: The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue stated that the tax effect involved 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, and therefore, instructed to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was sought to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.501 of 2017(O&M) Date of decision : 03.10.2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -I Chandigarh ...... Appellant versus Mrs. Bimal Suri, SCF, High Land Society Baltana, Zirakpur ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, and Mr. Ajiteshwar Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. 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. Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE November 20, 2019 (ALKA SARIN) tripti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No TRIPTI SAINI 2019.11.26 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
