PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 LUDHIANA vs. M/S VARDHMAN HOLDING LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/348/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110555201604 September 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

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The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 prayed for by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should something survive therein. The court also noted that since the main case was dismissed, any pending C.M. application, if any, also stood disposed of. The reasoning for dismissal was solely based on the revenue's submission regarding the tax effect and its instructions to withdraw the appeal as per the CBDT circulars. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order concerning assessment year(s) not specified. The respondent is M/s Vardhman Holdings Limited, Ludhiana. The appeal was filed under ITA No. 348 of 2016 (O&M). The revenue's counsel stated that due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed in CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 and subsequent amendments, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. They requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed as withdrawn, considering the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circulars. The revenue argued that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than the monetary limit prescribed in Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018, as amended by 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. Based on these circulars, the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal. The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 348 of 2016 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1236 ITA No. 348 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision : 04.09.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ... Appellant Versus M/s Vardhman Holdings Limited, Ludhiana

....Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present: Mr.Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department with Mr. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel for the appellant. 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. ytDismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. POOJA SAINI 2019.09.10 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA No. 348 of 2016 (O&M) 2 3. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending C.M. application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( HARNARESH SINGH GILL ) 04.09.2019 JUDGE pooja saini Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No POOJA SAINI 2019.09.10 12:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →