THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, LUDHIANA vs. DEEPAK GUPTA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case, and no specific findings were made on the substantive issues that might have been before the Tribunal.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against Deepak Gupta (respondent-assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The amount in dispute is stated to be ₹30,46,771/-. The procedural history is that the revenue, through its counsel, sought to withdraw the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated July 11, 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 Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue, considering the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: No specific contentions are recorded for the assessee as the appeal was withdrawn by the revenue. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the tax effect involved was ₹30,46,771/-, and in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated July 11, 2018, it had instructions to withdraw the present appeal. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 192 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on : 25.07.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana . . . Appellant(s) Versus Deepak Gupta . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate for the respondent(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 30,46,771/-, 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 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 →- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
