THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATIALA vs. SH. HARI SINGH S/O SH. RAM MURTI, PREET NIWAS, KAUSHAL VIHAR, NABHA. (PAN: ABMPS0325B)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/272/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119124201828 November 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE R.C. KATHURIA (RETD.),MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 construed as 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 Court's decision is based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw due to the tax effect and the relevant CBDT circular.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (the revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The amount in dispute is stated to be ₹49,13,280/-. The procedural history involves the revenue seeking to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue is permitted to withdraw the appeal. This issue arises from the revenue's submission that the tax effect is ₹49,13,280/-, and in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, they have instructions to withdraw the appeal. The revenue also sought liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives. The revenue argued for withdrawal based on the circular and the tax effect. The ITAT's decision on this procedural matter is what the High Court is addressing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 272 of 2018 (O&M) Decided on : 28.11.2018 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala . . . Appellant(s) Versus Hari Singh . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL 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 ` 49,13,280/-, 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 November 28, 2018 J.Ram (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2018.11.30 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →