PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHKULA vs. SANJEEV KUMAR
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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 construed as 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 future case. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT order under challenge were not discussed or decided by the High Court, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds related to withdrawal.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula (the revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Shri Sanjeev Kumar (the assessee). The appeal pertains to assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal due to a tax effect of ₹21,27,267/-, citing Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 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 Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn based on the revenue's instructions and the CBDT circular concerning tax effect. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect of ₹21,27,267/-, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if anything survived. The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee's side.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-356-2016 Date of Decision: 26.7.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula ...Appellant. Versus Shri Sanjeev Kumar ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Letter dated 25.7.2018 is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 21,27,267/-, 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. 3. 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 26, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.08.01 12:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
