COMMISSIONER OF I-TAX ROHTAK vs. M/S ANAND KUMAR ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, SONEPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA/296/2012HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01099378201216 July 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. It was 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, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The ratio of this decision is that an appeal can be withdrawn based on a CBDT circular concerning tax effect, with specific liberty granted for revival, and without prejudice to the merits of the case or future adjudication of the legal issue.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak (appellant-revenue) against M/s Anand Kumar, Electrical Contractor (respondent-assessee). 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 ₹32,33,773. The procedural history is that the revenue, citing CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated July 11, 2018, sought to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal can be withdrawn by the revenue in view of the CBDT circular, and if so, with what liberty? The revenue argued that due to the tax effect of ₹32,33,773, it had instructions to withdraw the present appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. 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 judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 296 of 2012 (O&M) Decided on : 16.07.2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s Anand Kumar, Electrical Contractor . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Mr. Inderpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate and Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 32,33,773/-, 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 16, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.07.18 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →