CIT-I, CHANDIGARH vs. PARTAP HOON
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty prayed for by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal. 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 case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh (appellant-revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The amount in dispute is ₹ 22,21,156/-. The procedural history involves the revenue seeking to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July 2018. The revenue also requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, and if so, whether liberty should be granted to the revenue to revive the appeal. The revenue argued that the tax effect involved is ₹ 22,21,156/-, which is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, and therefore, they have instructions to withdraw the appeal. They further prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 348 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 19.07.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh . . . Appellant(s) Versus Sh. Partap Hoon, Prop. M/s Charisma Goldwheels, Chandigarh . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). Mr. M.S. Kanda, Advocate for the respondent(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 22,21,156/-, she has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of the circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, she 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 19, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.07.25 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
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
