PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHKULA vs. NIRMAL RANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/124/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110307201624 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. 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 claimed by the revenue was expressly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the original dispute.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula (the revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Smt. Nirmal Rani, proprietor of M/s Viking Tanners, Ambala City. The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹ 47,94,323. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed as withdrawn in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, given the tax effect involved. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being ₹ 47,94,323, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with the aforementioned circular. They also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something further survived. The respondent's contentions 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-124-2016 Date of Decision: 24.7.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula ...Appellant. Versus Smt. Nirmal Rani, Prop. M/s Viking Tanners, Ambala City ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 47,94,323/-, 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 →