THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK vs. M/S NIPPON LEAKLESS TALBROS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/8519/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01143827201812 September 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court first allowed the application for restoration of ITA No. 8519 of 2018, which had been dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently, the Revenue's counsel stated that they had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits as per CBDT Circulars. The Court then dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications related to the main case were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The appeal, ITA No. 8519 of 2018, filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rohtak (the Revenue) against M/s Nippon Leakless Talbros Ltd. (the Assessee), was initially dismissed for non-prosecution on 14.08.2019. The Revenue filed an application for restoration of the appeal, which was allowed on 12.09.2019. Subsequently, the Revenue's counsel stated that due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 and Circular No. 17 of 2019, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue requested liberty to file an application for revival if circumstances changed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be restored to its original number after being dismissed for non-prosecution? (Procedural issue) 2. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by the Revenue based on the tax effect and CBDT circulars? Arguments: Assessee: No arguments are recorded for the Assessee in the judgment. Revenue: The Revenue argued that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No. 17 of 2019 and 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

ITA No. 8519 of 2018 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 CM-18385-CII-2019 in/and ITA No. 8519 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.09.2019 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rohtak ... Appellant Versus M/s Nippon Leakless Talbros Ltd.

....Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. AJAY TEWARI, J.(ORAL) CM-18385-CII-2019 1. This is an application for restoration of ITA No. 8519 of 2018 to its original number which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 14.08.2019. Heard. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed. 2. ITA No. 8519 of 2018 is restored to its original number and taken up today itself. ITA No. 8519 of 2018 3. 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 POOJA SAINI 2019.09.17 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA No. 8519 of 2018 (O&M) 2 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. 4. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 5. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending C.M. application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( HARNARESH SINGH GILL ) 12.09.2019 JUDGE pooja saini Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No POOJA SAINI 2019.09.17 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →