PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I LUDHIANA vs. PARDEEP KUMAR AGGARWAL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty as prayed for by the appellant-revenue, allowing them to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. The court also noted that since the main case was dismissed, any pending Civil Miscellaneous (C.M.) applications also stood disposed of. The specific reasons for the original dispute or the merits of the case were not adjudicated upon as the appeal was withdrawn by the revenue.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana (the revenue) against Sh. Pardeep Kumar Aggarwal (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified in the provided text. The appeal challenges an order or action that is not detailed. The procedural history indicates that the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the revenue is permitted to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit, and if so, whether liberty should be granted to revive the appeal. The revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No.17 of 2019 and Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019. Consequently, the revenue had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted. The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee's side regarding the withdrawal or the liberty to revive.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1234 ITA No.321 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.09.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana ...... Appellant versus Sh. Pardeep Kumar Aggarwal ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Junior Standing counsel for the appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate for the respondent.
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is less than the monetary limit as prescribed in Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, further amended vide Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal. However, he prayed that liberty be granted to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. 2. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 3. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending C.M., if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE 09.09.2019 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Anuradha 2019.09.13 15:35 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
