COMMI. OF IT-II, JALANDHAR vs. M/S KENT MALLABLES PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/27/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095598201117 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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. The decision was based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw due to the tax effect falling under the purview of the aforementioned CBDT circular.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, against M/s Kent Mallables Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The amount in dispute is ₹33,15,859/-. The procedural history involves the revenue seeking to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018? (Question of procedure/administrative policy) The revenue argued that the tax effect of ₹33,15,859/- necessitates withdrawal of the appeal as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018. The revenue requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted. 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-27-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.7.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar ...Appellant. Versus M/s Kent Mallables Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel 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 ` 33,15,859/-, 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 17, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.19 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →