COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR II vs. MITHILESH KUMAR

PDF · subscribers

ITA/61/2013HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01105272201303 October 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT,MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect was ₹10,56,285/-, which was below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the Revenue did not want to pursue the appeal on its merits. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was also kept open. No specific finding was reached on the merits of the original dispute.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order concerning assessment year(s) not specified. The amount in dispute, referred to as the tax effect, was ₹10,56,285/-. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the assessee, Mithilesh Kumar. The procedural history leading to this appeal is not detailed in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed, considering the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 3/2018? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded. Revenue: The Revenue, through its counsel, stated that the tax effect involved in the case is ₹10,56,285/-. In view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, dated 11.07.2018, which specifies a monetary limit for filing appeals, and since the tax effect is less than ₹50 lacs, the Revenue does not wish to press the appeal on merits.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.61 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.10.2018 **** Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II

...Appellant

VS.

Mithilesh Kumar

... Respondent **** Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surya Kant

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sudip Ahluwalia **** Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr.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 `10,56,285/- 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

03.10.2018 vishal shonkar (Sudip Ahluwalia) Judge

Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No 2. Whether reportable?

Yes/No V VISHAL 2018.10.06 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →