COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, LUDHIANA vs. M/S KINETIC GROWTH STOCK LTD., LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/193/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095513201125 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as prayed for by the revenue. Liberty was granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be construed as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The High Court also noted that this order would dispose of all pending miscellaneous applications.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent was M/s Kinetic Growth Stock Ltd. The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹28,72,723/-. The appeal was decided on July 25, 2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the CBDT circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, concerning tax effect thresholds for filing appeals? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The revenue, through its counsel, sought to withdraw the present appeal due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 193 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on : 25.07.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s Kinetic Growth Stock Ltd. . . . 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 ` 28,72,723/-, 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. 3. This order shall also dispose of all the pending misc. applications. (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 →