COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA vs. M/S SUKHDEV SINGH HTC

PDF · subscribers
ITA/18/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110368201619 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted 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, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (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 ₹20,04,707. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, due to the tax effect involved. The revenue also requested liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue is permitted to withdraw the appeal based on the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018? (Question of law). The revenue argued that due to the tax effect of ₹20,04,707, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. They also sought liberty to revive the appeal. The ITAT did not record any specific arguments from the respondent assessee, Sh. Sukhdev Singh HTC, on this point.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 18 of 2016 (O&M) Decided on : 19.07.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala . . . Appellant(s) Versus Sh. Sukhdev Singh HTC . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Mr. Z.S. Klar, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). Mr. Munish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the respondent(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 20,04,707/-, he 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, he 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 19, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.07.20 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →