THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX 3 LDH vs. M/S NIKKAMAL JEWELLERS 455. THE MALL .LDH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/94/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119427201809 September 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted the liberty prayed for by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. The reasoning for the dismissal was explicitly stated by the Revenue's counsel: the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in its circulars. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal with the specified liberty. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ludhiana (Revenue), filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order concerning M/s Nikkamal Jewellers, Ludhiana (Assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), though the specific ITAT order or action is not detailed. The procedural history indicates that the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal. The reason cited for withdrawal was that the tax effect involved was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No. 17 of 2019 and further clarified by Letter No. F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue should be dismissed as withdrawn, considering the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circulars. Assessee's Contention: The Assessee did not explicitly present arguments as the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal. However, the withdrawal was based on the Revenue's own circulars regarding monetary limits. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that due to the tax effect being less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 (amended by Circular No. 17 of 2019 and Letter No. F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019), it had instructions to withdraw the present appeal. The Revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something further survived.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.94 of 2018 (O&M) 1 219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.94 of 2018 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.09.2019 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ludhiana ...... Appellant versus M/s Nikkamal Jewellers, 455 The Mall, Ludhiana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL *** Present : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel for the appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S.Kanda, 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. POOJA SHARMA 2019.09.10 17:32 I am the author of this document

ITA No.94 of 2018 (O&M) 2 3. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending C.M. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE 09.09.2019 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2019.09.10 17:32 I am the author of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →