COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SHANDONG TIEJUN ELECTRIC ENGGL. CO. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/30/2015HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109940201519 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case as the appeal was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-II, Chandigarh (appellant-revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is M/s Shandong TIEJUN Electric Engg. Co. Ltd. The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹47,64,300. The appeal was decided on July 19, 2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by the revenue in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated July 11, 2018, concerning the monetary limit for filing appeals. Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded as none appeared. Revenue: The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue stated that due to the tax effect of ₹47,64,300, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. They prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 30 of 2015 Decided on : 19.07.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-II, Chandigarh . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s Shandong TIEJUN Electric Engg. Co. Ltd. . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). None for the respondent(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 47,64,300/-, 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 19, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.07.24 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →