INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. MAHESHBHAI TULSHIBHAI PATEL

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/48/2019HC GujaratGJHC24009098201914 October 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. The reasoning is based on the appellant's submission that the tax effect involved is less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. In light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable, the appellant's counsel chose not to press the appeal. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. The Tribunal also noted that if there is any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular is not applicable for any reason, the appellant can seek revival of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Income Tax Officer (the appellant) against Maheshbhai Tulshibhai Patel (the respondent). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal is before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The procedural history indicates that the appeal was filed, and the appellant's counsel, Mrs. Kalpana K. Raval, stated that the tax effect involved is less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. This statement was made in light of Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the CBDT, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal, with a tax effect less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, is maintainable before the High Court in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, which provides a monetary limit for filing appeals. The appellant's contention is that the tax effect is below the prescribed limit. The revenue's contention is not recorded, but the appellant's counsel does not press the appeal based on the circular. The respondent's counsel's arguments are not recorded.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/48/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 48 of 2019 ========================================================== INCOME TAX OFFICER Versus MAHESHBHAI TULSHIBHAI PATEL ========================================================== Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

Date : 14/10/2019 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mrs.Kalpana K. Raval, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Ms.Vaibhavi K. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. Mrs.Kalpana K. Raval, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, has stated that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Under the circumstances, in the light of the Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, which provides that no appeal wherein the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs.1,00,00,000/- Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/48/2019 ORDER shall be filed before the High Court and which has also been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant does not press the present appeal. 3. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of as not pressed in light of the Circular dated 08.08.2019. However, in case there is any error in the computation of the tax effect involved or if, for any reason, the Circular is not applicable, it would be open for the appellant to seek revival of the appeal. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) RAVI P. PATEL Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →