THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 CHANDIGARH vs. MANPREET SINGH BHAMRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/173/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110361201625 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the revenue 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 claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The court also stated that this order would dispose of all pending miscellaneous applications. The judgment does not provide the specific ITAT order being challenged or the assessment year(s).

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh (appellant-revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Manpreet Singh Bhamra. The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹ 36,71,800/-. The appeal was decided on July 25, 2018, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by the revenue in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, considering the tax effect involved. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect of ₹ 36,71,800/-, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something further survived. The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 173 of 2016 (O&M) Decided on : 25.07.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh . . . Appellant(s) Versus Manpreet Singh Bhamra . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate, for the respondent(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 36,71,800/-, she has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of the circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, she 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. 3. This order shall also dispose of all the pending misc. applications. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 25, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.07.31 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →