COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SATYA NAND MUNJAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/69/2001HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01042114200130 October 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for by its counsel. The reasoning for withdrawal was explicitly stated by the revenue's counsel to be the tax effect being below the monetary limit stipulated in the relevant CBDT circulars and directives. The court did not decide on the merits of the case. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application (C.M. Application) was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana (the revenue) against Sh. Satya Nand Munjal (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges an order or action from an unspecified lower authority. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated, but it is implied to be below a certain monetary limit. The procedural history is that the revenue, represented by its counsel, stated it had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circulars No. 3 of 2018 and 17 of 2019, and a related letter. The revenue requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances changed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn, considering the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars and related directives? (Question of procedure/administrative policy) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded as the assessee's counsel was present but the appeal was withdrawn by the revenue. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than the monetary limit prescribed in Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018, as amended by Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, read with Letter No. F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019. Based on these circulars, the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal, requesting liberty to revive it if necessary.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

414 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.69 of 2001 Date of decision : 30.10.2019 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ...... Appellant versus Sh.Satya Nand Munjal C/o M/s. Hero Cycle Limited, Ludhiana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ALKA SARIN *** Present : Mr.Chetan Sood, Advocate and Mr.Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Alok Mittal, Advocate and Mr.Shantanu, Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is less than the monetary limit as prescribed in Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, further amended vide Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal. However, he prayed that liberty be granted to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. 2. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 3. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending C.M. Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (ALKA SARIN) JUDGE 30.10.2019 raman Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAMAN KUMAR 2019.11.01 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →