PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL),GURGAON vs. M/S HEERA MOTI AGRO INDUSTRIES,PAN;AADFH7463B

PDF · subscribers
ITA/139/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117324201718 September 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 Income Tax Appellate 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 (Central), Gurgaon (the revenue) against M/s Heera Moti Agro Industries, Baddi (the assessee). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹13,73,837. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal in accordance with Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if any aspect of the matter survived.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue is entitled to withdraw the appeal given the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. They further requested liberty to revive the appeal if any aspect survived. 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-139-2017 Date of Decision: 18.9.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon ...Appellant. Versus M/s Heera Moti Agro Industries, Baddi ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with 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 ` 13,73,837/-, 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 September 18, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.09.25 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →