THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 LUDH vs. M/S ORIENTAL DYEING & FINISHING MILLS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/123/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110306201624 July 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,LOK ADALAT BENCH - 31 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the Tribunal'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 case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana (the revenue) against M/s Oriental Dyeing & Finishing Mills, Ludhiana (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The amount in dispute is ₹31,73,114/-. The procedural history is that the revenue, through its counsel, sought to withdraw the appeal based on a CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue is permitted to withdraw the appeal. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal. It also prayed for liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted. The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-123-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.7.2018 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana ...Appellant. Versus M/s Oriental Dyeing & Finishing Mills, Ludhiana ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Mandeep Singh Kanda, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 31,73,114/-, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of Circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. However, he has 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 24, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.30 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →