COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK vs. SATYA PARKASH AGGARWAL & SONS (HUF), ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA/321/2013HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01105188201318 July 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for.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, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. No specific finding on the merits of the ITAT's order was made.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak (the revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Satya Parkash Aggarwal & Sons (HUF). The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The tax effect involved in the appeal is ₹14,82,266/-. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The revenue also requested liberty to revive the appeal if necessary.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue is permitted to withdraw the appeal based on the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, given the tax effect involved? The revenue argued that it had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being ₹14,82,266/-, citing CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue also sought liberty to revive the appeal. The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-321-2013 Date of Decision: 18.7.2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ...Appellant. Versus Satya Parkash Aggarwal & Sons (HUF) ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Inderpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 14,82,266/-, 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 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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →