PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BATHINDA vs. SARTAJ SINGH
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 legal issue claimed by the revenue was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The judgment does not provide reasoning on the merits of the case as it was withdrawn. No specific findings were made on any substantive legal issues.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda (the revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Shri Sartaj Singh (the assessee). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹44,57,325. The appeal was filed for the assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The procedural history leading to this appeal is not detailed, other than it being an appeal against the ITAT's order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by the revenue in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, considering the tax effect involved. Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions are recorded for the assessee in the judgment. Revenue: The revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that it had 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, due to the tax effect of ₹44,57,325. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-358-2016 Date of Decision: 24.7.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda ...Appellant. Versus Shri Sartaj Singh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 44,57,325/-, 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 July 24, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.30 14:11 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
