COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR II vs. MITHILESH KUMAR

PDF · subscribers

ITA/62/2013HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01105273201303 October 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT,MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which specifies a monetary limit for filing appeals, and the fact that the tax effect in this case (Rs. 16,155/-) is below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lacs, the Revenue did not wish to press the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed. 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, Jalandhar-II (Revenue) against Mithilesh Kumar (Assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), though the specific order or action is not detailed. The tax effect involved in the case is Rs. 16,155/-. The Revenue, citing Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the CBDT, stated that the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lacs and therefore did not wish to press the appeal on merits. The High Court was hearing the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed due to low tax effect, in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018? (Question of law) The Revenue argued that the tax effect in the present appeal is Rs. 16,155/-, which is below the threshold of Rs. 50 lacs stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the Revenue stated that it did not wish to press the appeal on merits. The judgment does not record any arguments from the Assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.62 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 `16,155/- 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 →