PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AMARTAX INDUSTRIES LTD CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/312/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110516201618 July 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the Revenue was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case, and the operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh (the Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed for the assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute was ₹36,53,762. The respondent in the appeal was M/s Amartax Industries Ltd., Chandigarh. The appeal was listed for hearing on 18.7.2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should permit the Revenue to withdraw the appeal, considering the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The Revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that due to the tax effect of ₹36,53,762, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018. The Revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something further survived therein. The respondent was not represented, and no arguments were recorded on their behalf.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-312-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.7.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh ...Appellant. Versus M/s Amartax Industries 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. None for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 36,53,762/-, 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 July 18, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.20 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →