CIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S SUNRISE STOCK SERVICES P. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/572/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093520201026 September 2018Bench: MS. JUSTICE NAVITA SINGH,MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel, who cited CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. This circular, concerning the monetary limit for appeals, indicated that the Revenue did not want to pursue the appeal on its merits because the tax effect of ₹48,44,179/- was below the threshold of ₹50 lacs. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was expressly kept open.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana (Revenue) against M/s Sunrise Stock Services (P) Ltd. (assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), though the specific order or action is not detailed. The tax effect involved in the case is stated to be ₹48,44,179/-. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the appeal by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed, given the tax effect and a relevant CBDT Circular? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded. Revenue: The Revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that the tax effect involved is ₹48,44,179/-. Citing Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulates a monetary limit for filing appeals, the Revenue indicated it did not wish to press the appeal on merits as the tax effect was less than ₹50 lacs.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.572 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.09.2018 **** Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana ..... Appellant Versus M/s Sunrise Stock Services (P) Ltd.

..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1) Learned counsel for Revenue states that the tax effect involved in this case is `48,44,179/- and in view of the recent Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, the tax effect being less than `50 lacs, he does not want to press this appeal on merits. (2) In view of the CBDT Circular, the instant appeal is dismissed as not pressed. As prayed for by learned counsel for the appellant, liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal, if need be, in the changed circumstances. The question of law is also kept open.

(SURYA KANT)

JUDGE 26.09.2018

(SUDIP AHLUWALIA) Bhumika JUDGE 1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes 2. Whether reportable: No Bhumika Bhati 2018.09.28 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →