THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA/181/2013HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01105033201318 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty sought by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived. 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 disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh (appellant-revenue) against M/s Serco BPO Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon (respondent-assessee). The appeal challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹45,68,060/-. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be withdrawn in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, considering the tax effect involved? The appellant-revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that due to the tax effect of ₹45,68,060/-, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue sought liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if any aspect survived. The respondent-assessee was not represented, and no arguments were recorded on their behalf.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-181-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.7.2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh ...Appellant. Versus M/s Serco BPO Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 45,68,060/-, 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 July 18, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.20 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →