PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 CHANDIGARH vs. OM PARKASH KUKREJA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/324/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110529201631 October 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the Court explicitly stated that the legal issue claimed by the revenue was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh (the revenue) against Shri Om Parkash Kukreja (the assessee). The appeal was before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. On a previous date, the revenue's counsel sought time to obtain instructions regarding the tax effect. Subsequently, the revenue's counsel stated that the tax effect was `26,36,588/-, differing from a previously mentioned amount of `82,94,407/-. The revenue then sought to withdraw the appeal in light of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, requesting liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018? (Question of procedure/law) The revenue argued that the tax effect in the appeal was `26,36,588/-, which was below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018. Consequently, the revenue prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. The revenue also sought liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee's side regarding the withdrawal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-324-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.10.2018 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh ...Appellant. Versus Shri Om Parkash Kukreja ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant had sought time to get instructions in regard to the tax effect involved. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that the tax effect involved in the appeal has been mentioned as ` 82,94,407/- whereas as per the instructions, the tax effect involved is ` 26,36,588/-. 3. In view of the above, she prays for withdrawal of 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. 4. 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 October 31, 2018 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.11.02 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →