PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BATHINDA vs. M/S BHALARIA CONSTRUCTIONS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/363/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117573201711 October 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 considered an affirmation of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific findings on the merits of the case were made.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda (the revenue) against M/s Bhalaria Constructions, Bathinda (the assessee). The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹ 25,66,890/-. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn based on the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018? (Question of procedure/administrative policy) The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being ₹ 25,66,890/-, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted. The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-363-2017 Date of Decision: 11.10.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda ...Appellant. Versus M/s Bhalaria Constructions, Bathinda ...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. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 25,66,890/-, 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 October 11, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.10.12 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →