PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, GURGAON vs. MADAN LAL GULATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/311/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110515201620 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 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. No specific findings on the merits of the case were made as the appeal was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon (appellant-revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent was Shri Madan Lal Gulati. The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹ 25,01,760. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

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 Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be withdrawn in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, considering the tax effect involved. Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that due to the tax effect of ₹ 25,01,760, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if anything survived.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-311-2016 Date of Decision: 20.7.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon ...Appellant. Versus Shri Madan Lal Gulati ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Arun Biriwal, Advocate for the appellant. 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 ` 25,01,760/-, 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 20, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.23 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →