COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) LUDHIANA vs. M/S JINDAL FINE INDUSTRIES

PDF · subscribers
ITA/161/2013HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01105011201318 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the Revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 claimed by the Revenue was expressly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding was reached on the merits of the case, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal concerned assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute was ₹20,35,303. The procedural history is that the Revenue sought 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 Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the Revenue. (Question of procedure) The Revenue argued that it had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the CBDT. The Revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if anything survived. The judgment does not record any arguments from the Assessee, M/s Jindal Fine Industries, Ludhiana.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-161-2013 Date of Decision: 18.7.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ...Appellant. Versus M/s Jindal Fine Industries, Ludhiana ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 20,35,303/-, 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 18, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.20 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →