COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA vs. MAHARAJA AMARINDER SINGH
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty as prayed for by the revenue. 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 its merits. Furthermore, the Court explicitly stated that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. This implies that the merits of the dispute were not decided, and the withdrawal was purely procedural based on the tax effect threshold.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (the appellant/revenue) against Maharaja Amarinder Singh (the respondent/assessee). The appeal challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the appeal was approximately ₹1,25,415. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The revenue also requested liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if any aspect of it survived.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the revenue is permitted to withdraw the appeal, and if so, whether liberty should be granted to revive it. The revenue argued that due to the low tax effect, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. It further prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal. The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee's side regarding the withdrawal or liberty to revive.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-361-2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 21.09.2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ...Appellant Versus Maharaja Amarinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL Present:- Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, and Mr. Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate, for the respondent. * * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 1,25,415/- (approx.), he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of the circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, he 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. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE 21.09.2016 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Amodh Sharma 2016.09.21 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
