COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, CHD. vs. RAMESH KUMAR, PROP. MUNISH IRON STORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA/154/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095470201117 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 would not be considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The Court did not decide the substantive merits of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh (revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Shri Ramesh Kumar (HUF). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹25,78,955/-. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The revenue requested liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed as withdrawn in light of the tax effect and the CBDT circular. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, they have instructions to withdraw the present appeal. They further prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal. The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondent (assessee).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-154-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.7.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh ...Appellant. Versus Shri Ramesh Kumar (HUF) ...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. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Parshad, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 25,78,955/-, 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 17, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.19 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →