PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX -2 CHD vs. M/S ARIHANT FOAM PVT LTD PLOT NO 1422 SEC 34C CHD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/357/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117566201702 August 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,LOK ADALAT BENCH - 31 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. It was 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 court did not decide the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh (the revenue) against M/s Arihant Foam Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh (the assessee). The appeal challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹25.33 lakhs. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on Circular No. 03/2018 dated July 11, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The revenue also requested liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if any aspect survived.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the revenue should be permitted to withdraw the appeal. The revenue argued that it had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect involved, citing CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue also sought liberty to revive the appeal. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee regarding the withdrawal or the liberty to revive.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-357-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 2.8.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh ...Appellant. Versus M/s Arihant Foam Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 25.33 lakhs, she has instructions to withdraw the present appeal as well as the applications in view of Circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. However, she 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 August 2, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.08.03 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →