PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ROHTAK vs. RAJENDER SINGH YADAV

PDF · subscribers
ITA/217/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110410201620 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak (the revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent was Shri Rajender Singh Yadav (the assessee). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹ 25,93,940. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The revenue also requested liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if anything survived.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive, as prayed for by the revenue based on CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by learned counsel, stated that due to the tax effect of ₹ 25,93,940, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. They prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-217-2016 Date of Decision: 20.7.2018 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ...Appellant. Versus Shri Rajender Singh Yadav ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for Mr. Inderpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate and Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 25,93,940/-, she 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, she 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 July 20, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.23 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →