COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL V. MD EKRAM

C.M.P./133/2015

AI Insights

The case involves the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) as the petitioner and Md. Ekram as the respondent. Initially, the Tax Appeal No. 45 of 2013 was dismissed for default due to non-compliance with a court order. The petitioner filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition to restore this appeal, which was initially barred by limitation but was restored following an oral prayer for condonation of delay, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Mahabir Singh v. Chief of Army Staff. Subsequently, the restored Tax Appeal was dismissed based on the monetary limits set by the CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, which retrospectively applies to pending appeals and raises the threshold for filing appeals in the High Courts to Rs. 50 Lakhs.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 684380 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mahabir Singh v. Chief of Army Staff
• Laws Referred To: Mahabir Singh v. Chief of Army Staff reported in 1990 Supp SCC 89(1)
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK ROSHAN
• Keywords: CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018; Civil Miscellaneous Petition; Condonation of delay; Restoration of appeal; Tax appeal

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 133 of 2015 In Tax Appeal No. 45 of 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna … Petitioner -Versus- Md. Ekram, Son of Late Abdul Rauf, Resident of behind Madhuban Market, Main Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi … Respondent ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Roshan, Advocate For the Respondent : ----- 04 /Dated : 27 th September, 2018 Oral Order Per D.N. Patel, J. C.M.P. No. 133 of 2015 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay has been preferred. However, oral prayer is made for condonation of delay. 2. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahabir Singh v. Chief of Army Staff reported in 1990 Supp SCC 89(1) in paragraph no. 1, which reads as under: “1. Heard counsel for the petitioner. This petition is barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay has been made. We have, however, accepted the oral prayer of the counsel to condone the delay and have proceeded to hear the matter on merits.” 3. In the light of the aforesaid decision, we accept the oral prayer of the counsel and the delay is condoned. 4. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred for restoration of Tax Appeal No. 45 of 2013 which was dismissed for default on 24th February, 2015 for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 3rd February, 2015. 5. Looking to the reasons stated in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, Tax Appeal No. 45 of 2013 is restored to its original file with the same number. -2- 6. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is, therefore, allowed and disposed of. Tax Appeal No. 45 of 2013 7. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in view of the latest Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes i.e. CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which gives revised monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Income Tax Department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Courts for filing S.L.P. before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 8. With respect to the High Courts, monetary limit has been enhanced to Rs.50 Lakhs. 9. This Circular provides for some exceptions also in Paragraph No.10 thereof and looking to Paragraph No.13 thereof, it appears that aforesaid instructions contained in the Circular to be applied retrospectively to the pending appeals before the High Courts. Photocopy of the aforesaid Circular is taken on record. 10. Having heard counsel for the appellant and looking to the Circular No.03 of 2018 dated 11th July, 2018 and also looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, monetary limit involved in the present case is less than Rs.50 Lakhs and the fact of this case is not falling within the exceptions pointed out at Paragraph No.10 of the Circular. 11. In view of the aforesaid Circular, this appeal is dismissed. 12. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. (D.N. Patel, J.) (Amitav K. Gupta, J.) Ajay/ "