COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II JALANDHAR vs. TEJINDER SINGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/330/2014HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109476201420 July 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. 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 claimed by the revenue was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The reasoning for the dismissal was solely based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw due to the tax effect and the CBDT circular. No finding was reached on the substantive merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jalandhar (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 appeal concerned assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute was ₹40,46,169. The procedural history leading to this appeal is not detailed, other than the revenue filing the present appeal before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be withdrawn in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which pertains to monetary limits for filing appeals. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect of ₹40,46,169, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with the said circular. No arguments were recorded for the respondent-assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-330-2014 Date of Decision: 20.7.2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jalandhar ...Appellant. Versus Shri Tejinder Singh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 40,46,169/-, 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 20, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.23 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →