THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S CITY CLINIC PVT LTD SCO-47-49 SECTOR 34A CHD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/86/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119418201816 July 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE R.C. KATHURIA (RETD.),MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the tax effect was ₹3,33,140/-, which was significantly below the ₹50,00,000/- monetary limit stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 for filing appeals in the High Court. While the Revenue claimed an exception applied, the Court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd., [2015] 373 ITR 526 (SC), where appeals with low tax effect were dismissed without delving into merits, chose to dismiss the present appeal on similar grounds. The Court clarified that the dismissal was not an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits and that the legal issue raised by the Revenue was left open for adjudication in an appropriate future case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh (Revenue) against M/s City Clinic Pvt. Ltd. (Assessee). The tax effect involved in the present appeal was ₹3,33,140/-. The Revenue acknowledged the issuance of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, dated July 11, 2018, which fixed the monetary limit for filing appeals in the High Court at ₹50,00,000/- and stated its applicability to pending appeals. The Revenue contended that the present case fell under an exception (c) of Para 10 of the circular. The High Court perused the case file.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal, with a tax effect of ₹3,33,140/-, is maintainable before the High Court in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a monetary limit of ₹50,00,000/- for filing appeals. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The assessee is the respondent in the appeal. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the present case falls under exception (c) of Para 10 of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, despite the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The Revenue did not dispute the circular's issuance or applicability to pending appeals.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 86 of 2018 (O&M) Decided on : 16.07.2018 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s City Clinic Pvt. Ltd. . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s)-revenue. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) A perusal of the case file shows that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is `3,33,140/-. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue did not dispute that Circular No.3/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, has been issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi, whereby, the monetary limit has been fixed for filing the appeals in the High Court, which is `50,00,000/-. It was also not controverted that the aforesaid circular is applicable to all the pending appeals in the High Court. It was, however, claimed that the present case falls under the exception (c) of Para 10 drawn in the aforesaid circular. 2. Be that as it may, the tax effect involved in the present case is very small i.e. `3,33,140/-. The Apex Court in 'Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd., [2015] 373 ITR 526 (SC)', where the tax effect was low, had dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the appeal leaving the question of law open. 2. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that dismissal of the appeal shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 16, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.07.19 13:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →