PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, CHANDIGARH vs. SUSHMA BANSAL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the appeal was misconceived in view of the circulars issued by the Revenue regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The court noted that a similar appeal with a higher tax effect had also been dismissed on the same grounds.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order concerning assessment year 2012-13. The tax effect involved was Rs. 94,934, which was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals. The Revenue contended that the case fell under an exception to the monetary limit circular.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable despite the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. Whether an audit objection can override the circulars issued by the Revenue to reduce litigation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH 103 2023:PHHC:163688-DB ITA-104-2022 (O & M) Date of Decision: 20.12.2023 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh .....Appellant(s) Versus Sushma Bansal ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel, for the appellant. G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral) 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in ITA No.1494/Chd/2019 dated 19.11.2020 (Annexure A-4) for assessement year 2012-13. 2. The tax effect involved is as such of Rs.94,934/- and admittedly below the limit prescribed by the Board vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with Circular No.3/18 dated 11.07.2018. An averment has been made that the case is covered under Exception (c) of Para 10 of the said Circular and the fact that there was a cross appeal also filed before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner. 3. It is a matter of record that the said cross appeal was dismissed on account of low tax effect by the Tribunal itself on 23.11.2021 and thereafter, the order was sought to be rectified by filing application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which application was also dismissed on 26.07.2023. The Revenue then filed ITA-43-2023, which we dismissed on 16.11.2023 on the same ground that the tax effect was only Shivani Gupta 2023.12.21 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
ITA-104-2022 (O & M) -2- 2023:PHHC:163688-DB Rs.8,93,540/- in that case and was less than the monetary limit. We also rejected the contention that the audit objection as such could not over come the Circular and frustrate the purpose for reducing litigation. 4. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the circular issued by the Revenue, the present appeal is apparently misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 20.12.2023 (LAPITA BANERJI) shivani JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No Shivani Gupta 2023.12.21 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
