PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUGMARK INTERWEB PVT LTD
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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 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 No specific finding was given on the merits of the ITAT's order, as the appeal was withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh (appellant-revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is M/s Pugmark Interweb Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision, the details of which are not provided. The tax effect involved in the appeal is ₹11.33 lakhs. The appeal was filed in 2016.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the revenue is entitled to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, concerning the monetary limit for filing appeals, and if so, with what liberty? Contentions: Assessee: No arguments are recorded for the assessee. Revenue: The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue stated that due to the tax effect of ₹11.33 lakhs, she has instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. She 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-314-2016 (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 ` 11.33 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 →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Shivaraj M S vs. The Union Of INDIAKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
