Rajasthan High Court Judgments — 2019

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, which allows for withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The court noted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than Rs.1 crore. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect involved in the present appeal was less than Rs. 1 crore. In view of Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, as clarified by a subsequent communication dated 20.08.2019, the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal granted this permission. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made. The specific order or authority against which the appeal was filed, and the grounds of appeal, were not discussed or decided.

The High Court held that the issue raised in the appeal is covered by its previous judgment in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.145/2015 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd.), decided on 02/08/2017. The court applied the ratio of that judgment to the present appeal. However, the court also noted that the said previous judgment is subject to a special leave petition pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the parties are bound by the final judgment of the Supreme Court. The appeal was disposed of in light of this, with the operative direction being that the parties shall be bound by the final Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on the Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarification dated 20.08.2019, which govern the filing of appeals based on the tax effect. Since the tax effect in the present appeals was stated to be less than Rs. 1 crore, the revenue was permitted to withdraw them. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute were made, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural ground related to the tax effect threshold.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning was based on the Circular No.17/2019, which indicated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs.1 crore were eligible for withdrawal. The court noted that the tax effect in these appeals was indeed less than Rs.1 crore. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No substantive issues of income tax law were decided, and therefore, no ratio decidendi for future cases was established. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's (Revenue's) request for permission to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning for this decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarification, which indicated that the tax effect in the present appeals was below the prescribed threshold for filing appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. No substantive issues were decided on their merits, and therefore, no ratio decidendi for future cases on the merits of the original dispute can be extracted. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.

The High Court held that there were no reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact on the issue of protective assessment, rendered by the CIT(A) and ITAT, as they were based on pure factual appreciation. Regarding the substantive addition of ₹50,00,000/-, the Tribunal noted that these amounts were part of the regular assessment completed under Section 143(3). In the absence of any incriminating material, the Tribunal found that the issue could not have been revisited. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that there was no error or infirmity in the ITAT's decision. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the deletion of the protective addition and the substantive addition of ₹50,00,000/-.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, to withdraw the present appeals. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, and a clarification dated 20.08.2019. The primary reason for granting permission was that the tax effect involved in the appeals was less than Rs. 1 crore, which is a criterion for withdrawal under the said circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural ground.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 and a subsequent clarification dated 20.08.2019, which indicated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 1 crore should generally be withdrawn. The reasoning was purely procedural, adhering to the directives issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding the filing and prosecution of appeals. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the original dispute. The operative direction was that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. No issues were left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on the revenue's request.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, and a subsequent clarification dated 20.08.2019. The circular and clarification likely pertain to monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue. Since the tax effect in the present appeals was less than Rs.1 crore, the Revenue sought to withdraw them. The Court found no impediment to this request and accordingly dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on the Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, dated 08.08.2019, and its clarification dated 20.08.2019. The Court noted that the tax effect in the appeals was less than Rs. 1 crore, which was the basis for the revenue's request. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeal. This decision was made in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification, which stipulate conditions for filing appeals based on the tax effect. The Court noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than Rs. 1 crore, which was the basis for the revenue's request to withdraw. The reasoning is solely procedural, based on the applicability of the CBDT circular. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the threshold specified in the relevant CBDT circular can be withdrawn upon seeking permission from the court. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, dated 08.08.2019, and its clarification dated 20.08.2019. The circular and clarification stipulate a threshold for pursuing appeals based on the tax effect. As the tax effect in the present appeals was recorded as being less than Rs.1 crore, the revenue's request for withdrawal was acceded to. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made.

The High Court held that there was no merit in the Revenue's argument and that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal. The Court agreed with the ITAT's conclusion that the addition of ₹5,50,000 was unwarranted due to the lack of any material or evidence in support of Madan Mohan Gupta's statement. The ITAT had reasoned that the AO made the addition solely on presumption, without any concrete evidence of a land purchase transaction by the assessee during the relevant period or surrounding years. Furthermore, the ITAT noted that the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Madan Mohan Gupta, rendering the addition unsustainable. The Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment also notes that another issue, in which the assessee had appealed to the Tribunal, was a subject matter of remand and the Revenue had not appealed against that decision.

The Court found that for both additions, the AO relied on the statement of Madan Mohan Gupta, a Director of Hemang Construction Private Limited. The Court noted that Gupta's statement, considered an admission by the AO, merely confirmed the assessee's directorship. It did not contain any admission by the assessee that amounts paid for the acquisition of plots by the company belonged to him or that he had funded the company. Consequently, the Court held that the questions of law urged by the Revenue did not arise, as the findings of the ITAT were purely factual. No substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, New Delhi, as clarified by a subsequent communication dated 20.08.2019. The circular stipulated that appeals with a tax effect of less than Rs. 1 crore should not be filed or pursued. Since the tax effect in this appeal was less than Rs. 1 crore, the learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw. The court granted this permission, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

The High Court granted permission to the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarification, which stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 1 crore should be withdrawn. The Court noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was indeed less than Rs. 1 crore. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case.