PR. COMMOISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), GURGAON vs. SH. ANIL VERMA
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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the Court explicitly stated that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. This implies that the merits of the case were not decided, and the withdrawal was purely procedural based on the tax effect threshold.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon (the revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent in the appeal is Shri Anil Verma (the assessee). The tax effect involved in the appeal is ₹4,12,335. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal in accordance with Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The revenue also requested liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if any aspect survived.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the revenue is entitled to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, and if so, whether liberty should be granted to revive the appeal. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being below the threshold prescribed in Circular No. 03/2018, they have instructions to withdraw the appeal. They further prayed for liberty to revive the appeal if any aspect of the matter survived. The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondent assessee.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-334-2017 Date of Decision: 18.9.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon ...Appellant. Versus Shri Anil Verma ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 4,12,335/-, 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 September 18, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.09.25 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
