PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHKULA vs. MANOJ MITTAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/150/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117337201730 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. 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 ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The court did not decide the substantive merits of the appeal.

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 Shri Manoj Mittal (the assessee). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹32,42,332. The appeal was filed for the assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which provides for withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The revenue prayed for liberty to revive the appeal if something survives therein.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue is entitled to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, and if so, whether liberty should be granted to revive the appeal. The revenue argued that the tax effect of ₹32,42,332 falls within the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, justifying the withdrawal of the appeal. They further prayed for liberty to revive the appeal if any aspect of the matter warrants it. 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-150-2017 Date of Decision: 30.7.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula ...Appellant. Versus Shri Manoj Mittal ...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. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Letter dated 25.7.2018 is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 32,42,332/-, 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. 3. 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 →