PR. COMMOISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANIL VERMA PAN:ABGPV4017P

PDF · subscribers
ITA/251/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117449201720 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal. 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. The decision was based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw due to the tax effect, as per the CBDT circular, and the court's discretion to grant liberty for revival.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon (the revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal pertains to assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute is ₹49,38,363/-. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on a CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, concerning tax effect. The revenue requested liberty to revive the appeal if necessary. The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue is entitled to withdraw the appeal in view of the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018? (Question of law). The revenue argued that due to the tax effect of ₹49,38,363/-, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue also prayed for liberty to revive the appeal. No arguments were recorded for the respondent (assessee).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-251-2017 Date of Decision: 20.7.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon ...Appellant. Versus Shri Anil Verma ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Arun Biriwal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 49,38,363/-, he 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, he 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 →