THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL

ITA/22/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117414201730 July 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,LOK ADALAT BENCH - 31 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the revenue the liberty 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 Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was expressly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case, as the appeal was withdrawn by the revenue.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh (revenue) against Sanjeev Aggarwal (assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The order or action under challenge is the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the appeal is ₹34,77,455/-. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 03/2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue is permitted to withdraw the appeal in light of the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, they have instructions to withdraw the present appeal. They further prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-22-2017 Date of Decision: 30.7.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh ...Appellant. Versus Sanjeev Aggarwal ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 34,77,455/-, 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 30, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.08.01 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →