CIT, LUDHIANA vs. BALWANT SALES(P) LTD. G.T. ROAD, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/919/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080959200829 February 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty sought by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be construed as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on its merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was expressly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The Court did not decide the merits of the addition made under Section 68 of the Act.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana (the revenue) initiated revisional proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. An addition of ₹12,25,400 was made under Section 68 of the Act concerning unexplained cash credits from seven individuals. The revenue's counsel stated that the tax effect of the disputed amount, even if the Tribunal's order were set aside, would be below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Consequently, the revenue requested the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if circumstances changed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed as withdrawn in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, given the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the tax effect of the disputed addition of ₹12,25,400, made under Section 68 of the Act, was below the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn, with a request for liberty to revive it. The revenue relied on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 919 of 2008 (O&M)

Decided on : 29.02.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana . . . Appellant Versus M/s Balwant Sales (P) Ltd. . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. * AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana (in short 'the CIT') has initiated the revisional proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act'). However, the addition of `12,25,400/- was made under Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits in respect of seven persons. On the aforesaid premises, it was submitted that the tax effect, even if the order of the Tribunal is set aside, would be less than the monetary limit prescribed in the circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015, issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that keeping in view the aforesaid circular, the present appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. However, he prayed that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. 2. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is, however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (HARI PAL VERMA) February 29, 2016 JUDGE J.Ram

JAWALA RAM 2016.03.04 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →