PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1CHANDIGARH vs. M/S ANSYSCO

PDF · subscribers
ITA/180/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110369201625 July 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 construed as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the Court explicitly stated that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh (the revenue) against M/s Ansysco (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The amount in dispute is stated to be ₹ 20,74,986/-. The procedural history is that the revenue, through its counsel, sought to withdraw the appeal based on a CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue is permitted to withdraw the appeal in light of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, considering the tax effect involved? (Question of law) The revenue argued that due to the tax effect of ₹ 20,74,986/-, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with the aforementioned CBDT circular. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee's side.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 180 of 2016 (O&M) Decided on : 25.07.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s Ansysco . . . 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 ` 20,74,986/-, 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 →