CIT-II, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S COUNCIL FOR VALUE ADDED HORTI. IN PUNJAB CHD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/117/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093017201022 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. The counsel stated that the respondent-council is no longer in operation and, therefore, requested permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to revive it if the need arises. The Court accepted this submission and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case. No specific findings were made on any substantive legal issues, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) against M/s Council for Value Added Horticulture in Punjab, Chandigarh. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The order or action under challenge is the appeal itself, filed before the High Court. The procedural history indicates that the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue made a submission before the Court. No specific amount in dispute is mentioned. The appeal was listed for hearing on September 22, 2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue should be permitted to be withdrawn. (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that the respondent-council is no longer in operation. Therefore, the revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to revive it if the need arises. No specific authorities or precedents were cited by the assessee. Revenue's Contention: (As stated above, the revenue is the appellant and made the submission for withdrawal.)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIG

Sr. No. 101 (3) Commissioner of I M/s Council for Va

CORAM : HON

HON

Present : Mr. V

Ms. P

Ms. N

for th

Mr. A

Mr. V

DEEPAK SIBAL, 1.

Learn respondent-council permitted to withdr 2.

Dism

22.09.2026 shamsher

GH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARY

Income Tax-II, Chandigarh Versus alue Added Horticulture in Punjab N'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK S N'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BI Varun Issar, Senior Standing Coun Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standing Co Nikita Garg, Junior Standing Coun he appellant-revenue. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, for Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for the re * * * * * J. (Oral) ned counsel for the appellan l is no longer in operation and raw this appeal with liberty to rev missed as withdrawn with liberty as

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

YANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-117-2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.09.2026

.…. Petitioner b, Chandigarh ..... Respondent IBAL INDLISH nsel, ounsel and nsel espondent. nt-revenue submits that the therefore, at this stage, he be vive it if need arises.

s prayed for.

[DEEPAK SIBAL]

JUDGE [SUNISH BINDLISH] JUDGE o o

SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.09.24 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →