PR.COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), GURGAON vs. M/S B.L.MEHTA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.& CONSTRUCTION,(THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/29/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119143201826 July 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE R.C. KATHURIA (RETD.),MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI1 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The Court's decision was based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in the CBDT Circular.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon (the revenue) against M/s B.L. Mehta Construction Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The amount in dispute is ₹26,50,000. The procedural history involves the revenue's decision to withdraw the appeal based on a CBDT Circular.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue. (Question of procedure) Assessee's Arguments: Not recorded. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that the tax effect involved is ₹26,50,000. In view of Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the revenue had instructions to withdraw the present appeal. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-29-2018 Date of Decision: 26.7.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon ...Appellant. Versus M/s B.L. Mehta Construction Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Ms. Nikita Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 26,50,000/-, 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 26, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.08.01 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →