COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJNISH CHAUDHARY HUF C/O K.R THEATRE KARNAL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 Court explicitly stated that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. No specific finding on the merits of the original dispute was made.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal (appellant-revenue) against Shri Rajnish Chaudhary (HUF), Karnal (respondent-assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The amount in dispute is ₹39,89,301/-. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, due to the tax effect. The revenue also requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue in view of the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018? (Question of procedure/administrative policy) The revenue argued that due to the tax effect of ₹39,89,301/-, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue requested liberty to revive the appeal if any aspect survived. The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee's side regarding the withdrawal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-165-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.7.2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal ...Appellant. Versus Shri Rajnish Chaudhary (HUF), Karnal ...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. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Parsad, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 39,89,301/-, 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 24, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.30 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
