COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S ANSYSCO SUNRISE COMPLEX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/176/2015HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109803201525 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case, as the appeal was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh (the revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The amount in dispute is ₹28,73,772. The procedural history involves the revenue filing the present appeal before the High Court. The High Court is considering the appeal on the date of the judgment, July 25, 2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by the revenue in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated July 11, 2018, concerning the monetary limit for filing appeals. The revenue argued that the tax effect involved is ₹28,73,772, which falls within the threshold specified in the circular, and therefore, it has instructions to withdraw the appeal. The revenue also sought liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives. 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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 176 of 2015 Decided on : 25.07.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s Ansysco Sunrise Complex . . . 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. Rohit Jain, Advocate and Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the respondent(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 28,73,772/-, 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. (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 →