COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANCHKULA vs. M/S RAJINDER SINGH AND CO. PANCHKULA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/227/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095551201116 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. 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 Court did not decide the substantive merits of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula (appellant-revenue) against M/s Rajinder Singh & Co. (respondent-assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The amount in dispute is stated to be ₹34,66,980/-. The procedural history involves the revenue withdrawing the appeal based on a CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, considering the tax effect involved. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being ₹34,66,980/-, they have instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with the aforementioned circular. No arguments were recorded for the respondent-assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 227 of 2011 Decided on : 16.07.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s Rajinder Singh & Co. . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). None for the respondent(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 34,66,980/-, 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 Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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 16, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.07.18 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →