COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, LUDHIANA vs. SUKHWINDER SINGH PROP. M/S AHMEDGARH TANKER TRANSPORT

PDF · subscribers
ITA/113/2012HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01099176201216 July 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty prayed for by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the original dispute.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Sukhwinder Singh. The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹42,06,698/-. The appeal was decided on 16.07.2018. The procedural history leading to this High Court appeal is not detailed in the judgment, other than the fact that the ITAT order was under challenge.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the CBDT circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, and if liberty should be granted to revive the appeal. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in the circular, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. They also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 113 of 2012 Decided on : 16.07.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana . . . Appellant(s) Versus Sukhwinder Singh . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 42,06,698/-, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of the circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, he prayed that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. 2. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is, however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 16, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.07.18 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →