PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), GURGAON vs. M/S RENAISSANCE BUILDCON COMPANY (P) LTD. (THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/53/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01147906201830 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 154 days in re-filing the appeal, allowing the application under Section 151 CPC. Subsequently, the appeal itself was dismissed as withdrawn, as per the instructions of the revenue's counsel, who cited the tax effect being less than Rs. One crore and Circular dated 17/2019 of the CBDT. The court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. Furthermore, the court 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 merits of the underlying tax dispute.

What were the facts?

The case involves an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon (the revenue) against an order concerning M/s Renaissance Buildcon Company (P) Ltd. (the assessee). The appeal was filed with a delay of 154 days, for which an application for condonation of delay was made under Section 151 CPC. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being less than Rs. One crore, citing Circular dated 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The revenue also requested liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances changed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 154 days in re-filing the appeal should be condoned, and if so, whether the appeal should be admitted for hearing. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning procedural rules and the discretion of the court). Contentions: Assessee: No specific arguments recorded in the judgment. Revenue: Submitted an application under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay, stating reasons for the delay. Subsequently, sought to withdraw the appeal based on CBDT Circular 17/2019 due to the tax effect being below Rs. One crore. 2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn, with or without liberty to revive, and whether the legal issue raised by the revenue should be left open for future adjudication. (Question of law concerning the consequences of withdrawal and the court's discretion in preserving legal issues).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CM No. 1040-CII of 2019 in/and

....1.... ITA No. 53 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 1040-CII of 2019 in/and ITA No. 53 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.8.2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon

.......Appellant Vs. M/s Renaissance Buildcon Company (P) Ltd. .......Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present: Mr. Dinesh Saini, Advocate for Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ***** AJAY TEWARI

, J. (ORAL)

CM No. 1040-CII of 2019 This is an application under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 154 days in re-filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 154 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. ITA No. 53 of 2019 (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 2019.09.03 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CM No. 1040-CII of 2019 in/and

....2.... ITA No. 53 of 2019 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 30, 2019

JUDGE Gurpreet Whether speaking /reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No GURPREET SINGH 2019.09.03 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

More judgments on Section 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →