COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-III, KOL vs. SHRI VIVEK MUNDRA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court observed that the tax demanded was Rs.77,84,323/-. Based on this figure, the Court held that the revenue could not prosecute the appeal on the ground of low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without deciding the substantial questions of law that had been framed. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal by the revenue may not be maintainable if the tax effect is below a certain threshold, and the court may decline to hear it on merits in such circumstances. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal, leaving the substantial questions of law open.
What were the facts?
The revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-III, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order dated February 24, 2012, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Kolkata. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2006-07. The amount of tax demanded, as per the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) VIII dated June 18, 2009, was Rs.77,84,323/-. The High Court noted that if this was the tax demand, the revenue could not pursue the appeal on the ground of low tax effect.
What were the issues?
The appeal was filed by the revenue. The primary issue that arose for consideration, as indicated by the court's observation, was whether the revenue could prosecute the appeal given the tax effect. The court noted that the tax demanded was Rs.77,84,323/-. The revenue's contention, implied by the court's statement, was that the appeal should be heard on merits. The assessee's position, though not explicitly recorded, would be to defend the Tribunal's order. The court's decision was based on the tax effect, suggesting that the substantial questions of law were not adjudicated upon.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OD-9 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE I.T.A. No.107 of 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-III, Kolkata. Versus Shri Vivek Mundra. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 19th January, 2022. Mr. P.K. Bhowmick, Adv. … for the Appellant. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. … for the Respondent. This appeal, filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act by the revenue, is directed against the order dated 24th February, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Kolkata, in ITA No.1409/Kol/2009 for the assessment year 2006-07. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the tax which has been demanded is Rs.77,84,323/- as could be revealed from the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) VIII dated 18th
2 June, 2009. If such is the position, then the revenue cannot prosecute the appeal on the ground of low tax effect. Accordingly, appeal stands disposed of. Substantial questions of law which have been framed for consideration, are left open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) Gh/kb,
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
