PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUGMARK INTERWEB PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/315/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110519201611 September 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The judgment does not provide details of the ITAT's order or the specific legal issue.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh (the revenue) against M/s Pugmark Interweb Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the appeal is ₹30.17 lakhs. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on Circular No. 03/2018 dated July 11, 2018, issued by the CBDT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue in view of the tax effect and the CBDT circular. (Question of procedure/administrative policy) The revenue argued that due to the tax effect of ₹30.17 lakhs, 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 something survives 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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-315-2016 (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 ` 30.17 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 →