THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. SMT. KAVITA RANI D/O SH. OM PARKASH, SCF-61, NEW GRAIN MARKET, SANGRUR. (PAN: AITPR8646N)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/192/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119035201808 October 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE R.C. KATHURIA (RETD.),MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

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 respondent is Smt. Kavita Rani (the assessee). The appeal pertains to the assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute is ₹ 22,81,861/-. The procedural history is that the revenue, through its learned counsel, sought to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue. (Question of procedure) Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded for the assessee. Revenue: The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue stated that due to the tax effect of ₹ 22,81,861/-, instructions were received to withdraw the appeal in accordance with Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the CBDT. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-192-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 8.10.2018 The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala ...Appellant. Versus Smt. Kavita Rani ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 22,81,861/-, 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 October 8, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.10.10 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →