THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL), LUDHIANA vs. SH. PARVEEN AHUJA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/212/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119058201830 January 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for. It was 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, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The court did not decide the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessment year(s) are not specified in the provided text. The amount in dispute is stated to be ₹30,08,586/-. The procedural history involves the revenue withdrawing the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by the revenue in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, considering the tax effect of ₹30,08,586/-? (Question of fact and law) Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded. Revenue: The revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that it had instructions to withdraw the present appeal due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 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. 212 of 2018 (O&M) Decided on : 30.01.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana . . . Appellant(s) Versus Parveen Ahuja . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 30,08,586/-, 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 January 30, 2019 J.Ram (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2019.02.04 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →