Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun And...

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun And Another v. M/S Hillgrange Preparatory School, 43 Ec Road, Dehradun

High Court 21 Mar 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · ukhcucis_pg
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun And Another v. M/S Hillgrange Preparatory School, 43 Ec Road, Dehradun
Date of order
21 Mar 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun And Another v. M/S Hillgrange Preparatory School, 43 Ec Road, Dehradun, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 28 of 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and another ………….. Appellants Versus M/s Hillgrange Preparatory School, 43 EC Road, Dehradun .…………. Respondent Present: Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) The Assessing Officer assessed additional income tax liability of the respondent/assessee to the tune of `1,45,621/-. The assessee went before the Commissioner of Appeals and succeeded. Against that, the Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal before 24[th] October, 2005. On 24[th] October, 2005, CBDT issued certain instructions, and thereby, amongst others, directed not to file appeals or references, if the amount of tax is less than `2 lacs. The Tribunal held that since such a direction has been issued and since the amount of tax involved in the appeal was less than `2 lacs, there is no question of going into the merits of the appeal and the appeal should be dismissed. The fact remains that when the appeal was preferred, the instructions dated 24[th] October, 2005 were not in existence. The appeal filed was, therefore, a perfectly valid appeal, which had to be decided on merits and that obligation to decide on merit could not be avoided by the Tribunal on the basis of a subsequent decision taken by CBDT now not to prefer the appeal where the tax involved is less than `2 lacs,inasmuch as the same instructions did not authorize withdrawal of appeal already preferred wherethe tax involved was less than `2 lacs. 2. We, accordingly, do not concur with the stand taken by the Tribunal in the instant case and, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order under appeal and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision on merits of the appeal. (Alok Singh, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 21.03.2013 21.03.2013 P. Singh
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan