PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD vs. CHAYA SINHA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/165/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117353201709 August 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding on the merits of the case was made as the appeal was withdrawn before any substantive adjudication.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad (the revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Smt. Chhaya Sinha (the assessee). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹ 21,76,511. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, concerning the monetary limit for filing appeals by the revenue. Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded. Revenue: The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue stated that due to the tax effect being ₹ 21,76,511, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No. 03/2018. They prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-165-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9.8.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant. Versus Smt. Chhaya Sinha ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Krishan Kant, Advocate for Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, 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 ` 21,76,511/-, 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 August 9, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.08.13 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →