PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, LUDHIANA vs. MS/A.K ENGINEERING CO D-117A PHASE -V FOCAL POINT LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/231/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117427201730 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal with liberty granted.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against M/s A.K. Engineering Co. (respondent-assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The amount in dispute is stated to be ₹ 40,88,345/-. The procedural history is that the revenue, through its learned counsel, sought to withdraw the present appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the appellant-revenue? (Question of procedure) The appellant-revenue, through its learned counsel, argued that it has instructions to withdraw the present appeal due to the tax effect involved (₹ 40,88,345/-) and in view of 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. The respondent-assessee's arguments are not recorded in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 231 of 2017 Decided on : 30.07.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s A.K. Engineering Co. . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 40,88,345/-, 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 30, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.08.04 13:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →