PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BNK INVESTMENTS. HOUSE NO.89.SECTOR 8A.CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/135/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117320201730 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The specific findings of the ITAT on the merits of the case were not discussed or decided by the High Court as the appeal was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh (the revenue) against M/s BNK Investments, Chandigarh (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 ₹30,96,149/-. The procedural history involves the revenue's decision to withdraw the appeal based on a CBDT Circular.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue, considering the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018? The revenue argued that the tax effect involved is ₹30,96,149/-, and based on CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, they have instructions to withdraw the present appeal. They prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. 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-135-2017 Date of Decision: 30.7.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh ...Appellant. Versus M/s BNK Investments, Chandigarh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Manpreet 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 ` 30,96,149/-, she 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, she 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 30, 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 →