THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( CENTRAL), LUDHIANA vs. SMT. POONAM AHUJA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/229/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119076201830 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted the revenue 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 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. No specific finding was given on the merits of the ITAT's order.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana (the revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute was ₹30,08,586/-. The procedural history involves the revenue's decision to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue should be permitted to withdraw the appeal, given the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue, through its counsel, stated that due to the tax effect of ₹30,08,586/-, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with 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 further survived. The ITAT's decision on the merits of the case was not recorded as an issue to be decided by the High Court, as the appeal was withdrawn.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 229 of 2018 (O&M) Decided on : 30.01.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana . . . Appellant(s) Versus Poonam 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 →