PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S STEEL STRIPS LTD CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/139/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01126776201626 September 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The court noted that the Revenue's counsel wished to withdraw the case in light of a CBDT Circular and that the tax effect involved was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, as amended. The court found no disability for one of its judges, who had previously been counsel for the respondent-assessee, in allowing the withdrawal. The Revenue was granted liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application was also disposed of as the main case was decided.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh (the Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Division Bench, Chandigarh, dated 22.09.2015, in ITA No.656/Chd/2014. The respondent is M/s Steel Strips Ltd., Chandigarh (the assessee). The appeal was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The Revenue's counsel stated that due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No.17 of 2019 and a subsequent letter, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The counsel also requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue is entitled to withdraw the appeal based on the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits in CBDT Circulars. The Revenue's contention is that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, further amended by Circular No.17 of 2019 and a letter dated 20.08.2019. Consequently, the Revenue's counsel has instructions to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue seeks liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The judgment records no specific arguments from the assessee's side, as none appeared, and the appeal was withdrawn by the Revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.139 of 2016 (O&M) ::1:: 1209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T. Appeal No.139 of 2016 Date of Decision : 26.09.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh ...... Appellant Versus M/s Steel Strips Ltd., Chandigarh ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL *** Present :- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) It has been brought to our notice that one of us (Ajay Tewari, J.) had been the counsel of the respondent-assessee but the counsel for the appellant has pointed out that she wishes to withdraw this case in lieu of the Circular of CBDT and therefore no disability attaches to Ajay Tewari, J. in allowing the withdrawal. We find this to be indeed so. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Division Bench, Chandigarh in ITA No.656/Chd/2014 dated 22.09.2015. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Revenue states that since the tax effect involved is less than the monetary limit as prescribed in Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, POOJA SHARMA 2019.09.27 16:18 I am the author of this document

ITA No.139 of 2016 (O&M) ::2:: further amended vide Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with Letter No.F. No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019, she has instructions to withdraw the present appeal. However, she has prayed that liberty be granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. 4. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 5. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE September 26, 2019 ashish Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No Whether reportable - Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2019.09.27 16:18 I am the author of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →