PR. COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), GURGAON vs. M/S HINDUSTAN SYRINGES & MEDICAL DEVICE LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/188/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117378201703 May 2017Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed. It was clarified that the withdrawal would not be considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the court explicitly stated that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case, as the appeal was withdrawn.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 (Central), Gurgaon (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 ₹16,93,814. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, dated 10.12.2015, concerning the monetary limit for filing appeals. The revenue also requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue should be permitted to withdraw the appeal in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, given the tax effect of ₹16,93,814? (Question of procedure/administrative policy) Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded for the assessee. Revenue: The revenue contended that the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, justifying withdrawal of the appeal. They relied on Circular No. 21/2015, dated 10.12.2015.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 188 of 2017 Decided on : 03.05.2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon . . . Appellant Versus M/s Hindustan Syringes & Medical Devices Ltd. . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Arun Biriwal, Advocate and Ms. Varinder Kaur Warraich, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 16,93,814/-, therefore, he may be allowed to withdraw the present appeal in view of the circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 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 (RAMENDRA JAIN) May 03, 2017 JUDGE J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2017.05.05 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →