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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/95/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119428201809 September 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the revenue's submission that the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in its Circular No. 3 of 2018, further amended by Circular No. 17 of 2019 and a subsequent letter dated 20.08.2019. The revenue explicitly stated they had instructions to withdraw the appeal on this ground. The Tribunal granted the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with the granted liberty. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ludhiana (the revenue) against M/s Nikkamal Jewellers (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges an order or action of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), though the specific order being appealed is not detailed. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history is that the revenue's counsel, citing CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 and subsequent amendments, stated they had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. They requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances changed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive, based on the revenue's instructions and the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the assessee. The assessee was represented by senior counsel. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue's counsel argued that due to the tax effect being less than the monetary limit prescribed in 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, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. They prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.95 of 2018 (O&M) 1 219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.95 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.95 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 →