CIT, PANCHKULA vs. M/S KANAHAYA METAL WORKS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that the tax effect in the appeal was ₹15,18,560/-. Citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a threshold for appeals, the Revenue stated it did not want to press the appeal on merits due to the tax effect being below ₹50 lacs. The Court accepted this submission and dismissed the appeal. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was expressly kept open.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Panchkula (Revenue) against M/s Kanahaya Metal Works, Jagadhri (assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges an order or action that is not detailed in the provided text. The tax effect involved in the case is stated to be ₹15,18,560/-. The procedural history indicates that the Revenue has chosen not to press the appeal on merits.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed, considering the tax effect and the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Assessee's Contention: The assessee does not appear to have made any specific contentions recorded in the judgment. The appeal is being dismissed based on the Revenue's submission. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, stated that the tax effect involved is ₹15,18,560/-. In view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which specifies a monetary limit for filing appeals, and since the tax effect is less than ₹50 lacs, the Revenue does not wish to press the appeal on merits.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.983 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.09.2018 **** Commissioner of Income-tax, Panchkula
...Appellant
VS.
M/s Kanahaya Metal Works, Jagadhri
... Respondent **** Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surya Kant
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sudip Ahluwalia **** Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J. (Oral)
(1) Learned counsel for Revenue states that the tax effect involved in this case is `15,18,560/- and in view of the recent Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, a photocopy whereof is taken on record and is marked as Mark ‘A’, the tax effect being less than `50 lacs, he does not want to press this appeal on merits. (2) In view of the CBDT Circular, the instant appeal is dismissed as not pressed. As prayed for by learned counsel for the appellant, liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal, if need be, in the changed circumstances. The question of law is also kept open.
(Surya Kant) Judge
13.09.2018 vishal shonkar (Sudip Ahluwalia) Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes 2. Whether reportable?
No V.Vishal 2018.09.17 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
