COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR II vs. JEETU KESHI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court decided that the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding the tax effect of ₹38,54,337/- and the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular sets a threshold of ₹50 lacs for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below this threshold, the Revenue chose not to press 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.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II (Revenue) against Jeetu Keshi (Assessee). The tax effect involved in the case was stated to be ₹38,54,337/-. The appeal was before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The procedural history leading to this appeal before the High Court is not detailed in the provided text.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be pressed on merits, considering the tax effect and the relevant CBDT Circular. The Revenue, through its counsel, stated that the tax effect was ₹38,54,337/-. The Revenue's contention was that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, which specifies a monetary limit for filing appeals, and given that the tax effect was less than ₹50 lacs, the appeal should not be pressed on merits. The Assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.67 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.10.2018 **** Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II
...Appellant
VS.
Jeetu Keshi
... 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 `38,54,337/- 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 →- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
