PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUGMARK INTERWEB PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/297/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110498201611 September 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,LOK ADALAT BENCH - 31 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the revenue 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 claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The court did not decide the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh (appellant-revenue) against M/s Pugmark Interweb Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh (respondent-assessee). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹18.53 lakhs. The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The procedural history leading to this appeal is not detailed in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be withdrawn in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, concerning the monetary limit for filing appeals. Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded. Revenue: The revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that due to the tax effect of ₹18.53 lakhs, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. 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-297-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.9.2018 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh ...Appellant. Versus M/s Pugmark Interweb Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 18.53 lakhs, she 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, she 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 September 11, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.09.12 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →