Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Ii, Pune v. Arihant G. Patni

Bombay HC11 Mar 2016ITXA/504/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed an income tax appeal against the tax assessment for Year 2006-07 because the appellant counsel did not press the appeal. The court noted that the tax effect was Rs. 14.13 lakhs, which falls below the Rs. 20,00,000 monetary limit specified in the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 for High Court appeals.

What did the court decide?

Income Tax Appeal No. 504 of 2013 dismissed as not pressed with refund of court fees.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Ii, Pune Vs Arihant G. Patni — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

504-13-itxa=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 504 OF 2013

¶4

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Pune .. Appellant

v/s.

Arihant G. Patni

..Respondent

Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar for the respondent

¶9

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA &

¶10

B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATED : 11^th MARCH, 2016.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2006-07.

¶13

Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue invited our attention to Circular No.21 of 2015 issued by the Central Board for Direct Tax dated 10^th December, 2015. In particular, our attention invited to paragraphs 3 and 10 therein which read as under:-

¶14

“3:- Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:-

1 of 2

Uday S. Jagtap

504-13-itxa=.doc

S. No.	Appeals in Income Tax matters	Monetary Limit (in Rs.)
1	Before Appellate Tribunal	10,00,000/-
2	Before High Court	20,00,000/-
3	Before Supreme Court	25,00,000/-

¶19

It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.”

¶20

“10:- This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/ Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”

¶21

In the present case, the tax effect is Rs. 14.13 lakhs as mentioned in paragraph 11 of the Appeal Memo.

¶22

In view of the above, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue does not press the present Appeal.

¶23

Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed, as not pressed.

¶24

Refund of Court Fees, as per Rules.

¶25

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶26

2 of 2

¶27

Uday S. Jagtap

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Ii, Pune v. Arihant G. Patni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Ii, Pune v. Arihant G. Patni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju Avinash Wardekar Vs the Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1)

The Ci.T.B.C-I. Vs M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Cancer Patients Aid Society Vs the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) and 2 Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Ii, Pune Vs Shri Chandan Shewani

The Commissioner of Income Tax Ii, Pune Vs Shri Chandan Shewani

General Electoral Trust Vs Income Tax Officer 20(1)(2) and 3 Ors.