PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BATHINDA vs. M/S BHALARIA CONSTRUCTIONS BIBIWALA RD BATHINDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/307/2015HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109948201519 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. 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 construed as 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 finding was given on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The present appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda (revenue) against M/s Bhalaria Constructions (assessee). The appeal challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹ 37,91,570/-. The appeal was decided on July 19, 2018, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed as withdrawn in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, concerning the monetary limit for filing appeals. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. They also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The 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. 307 of 2015 Decided on : 19.07.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s Bhalaria Constructions . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Mr. Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). 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 ` 37,91,570/-, 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 2018.07.23 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →