PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JALANDHAR vs. M/S F.C. SONDHI & COMPANY PVT LTD JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/127/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110310201626 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. It was 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 claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The court did not decide the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar (the revenue) against M/s F.C. Sondhi & Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The amount in dispute is ₹ 20,18,000/-. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July 2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue is permitted to withdraw the appeal in light of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, given the tax effect involved. Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that the tax effect involved is ₹ 20,18,000/-. In view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July 2018, the revenue had instructions to withdraw the present appeal. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-127-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.7.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar ...Appellant. Versus M/s F.C. Sondhi & Company (India) Pvt. Ltd., Suranussi, Jalandhar ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 20,18,000/-, 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 26, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.08.01 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →