Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur v. M/S. Popular Printers, Fateh Tiba, Mooti Doongri Road, Jaipur
High Court
23 Feb 2017 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur v. M/S. Popular Printers, Fateh Tiba, Mooti Doongri Road, Jaipur
Date of order
23 Feb 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur v. M/S. Popular Printers, Fateh Tiba, Mooti Doongri Road, Jaipur, the High Court (2017) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR
D.B. Civil Review No. 49 / 2012
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Popular Printers, Fateh Tiba, Mooti Doongri Road, Jaipur.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Sh. K.D. Mathur Adv.For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS
Order
23/02/2017
Matter has come up on application for recalling the orderdt.14-8-2012.
Counsel submits that although fresh circular has been issuedby the CBDT dt.9-2-2011 where the tax effect is less than Rs.20Lacs and decision has been taken by the department not to pressthe appeal or such of the cases which are pending having taxeffect less than Rs.20 Lacs has decided not to press the pendingappeals at the same time further submits that there is anexception clause that if there is audit objection on the basis ofwhich demand has been raised the bench mark of tax effect maynot come in way in filing/pursuing the appeal.
It is true that there is exception clause indicated in thecircular issued by the CBDT dt.9-2-2011 but that cannot beconsidered as a matter of rule and in the given circumstances
where the tax effect is Rs.1.45 Lacs the Government in its wisdomtook a decision where the tax effect is less than the bench markmay not like to pursue the appeal and in totality of the matter weare not inclined to recall the order.
Accordingly, the application stands rejected.
(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS)J. (AJAY RASTOGI)J.
Dheeraj/157
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.