THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NASHIK vs. M/S RAJMAL LAKHICHAND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., JALGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA/94/2016HC BombayHCBM03033404201612 March 2018Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S V GANGAPURWALA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN M. DHAVALE3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Court noted that the tax liability involved was Rs. 12,16,063/-, which is below the threshold of Rs. 20,00,000/- stipulated in the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015. The circular mandates a policy decision not to prosecute appeals with tax liabilities below this amount. In light of this circular and the tax liability, the Court decided to dispose of the appeal. No specific finding was made on the merits of the tax dispute itself, as the appeal was disposed of based on the administrative policy outlined in the CBDT circular.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nashik (the Revenue) against M/s Rajmal Lakhichand Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., Jalgaon (the Assessee). The tax liability involved in the appeal was Rs. 12,16,063/-. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The Revenue's Standing Counsel was absent, while the Assessee's counsel was present. The judgment was delivered on March 12, 2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be entertained given the tax liability involved, in light of CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015. Contentions: Assessee: Relied on CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015, which states a policy decision not to prosecute appeals where the tax liability is below Rs. 20,00,000/-. Revenue: The Standing Counsel for the appellant was absent, and no contentions were recorded for the Revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.94 OF 2016 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nashik. ... Appellant. Versus M/s Rajmal Lakhichand Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., Jalgaon. ... Respondent. ... Mr.Alok Sharma, Standing counsel for Appellant absent. Mr.Subodh P.Shah, advocate for Respondent.

...

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND A.M. DHAVALE,JJ.

Date : 12.03.2018. PER COURT : 1. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant absent. Counsel for Respondent is present. 2. Perusal of the appeal Memo it

2 transpires that the Tax liability involved is Rs.12,16,063/- (Rupees twelve lac sixteen thousand sixty three). 3. In view of CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015, the policy decision is taken not to prosecute the appeals wherein Tax liability is below Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lac). 4. In light of the above, the appeal stands disposed of. (A.M.DHAVALE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/Intaxappeal94.16

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →