COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATIALA vs. M/S BHARAT PLASTO CHEM PVT LTD , PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/20/2015HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109830201519 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 construed as 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 reached on the merits of the case due to the withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (appellant-revenue) against M/s Bharat Plasto Chem Pvt. Ltd. (respondent-assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The order or action under challenge is the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the appeal is ₹38,93,140/-. The appeal was decided on July 19, 2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should permit the revenue to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, concerning tax effect thresholds for filing appeals. Contentions: Assessee: No arguments are recorded for the assessee. Revenue: The revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that the tax effect involved is ₹38,93,140/- and sought to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue also 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. 20 of 2015 Decided on : 19.07.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s Bharat Plasto Chem Pvt. Ltd. . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Mr. Z.S. Klar, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). Mr. M.S. 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 ` 38,93,140/-, 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 19, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.07.23 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →