PR. COMMOISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), GURGAON vs. SMT. RANI VERMA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/364/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117574201718 September 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding on the merits of the case was given.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon (the revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Smt. Rani Verma (the assessee). The appeal pertains to the assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal due to a tax effect of ₹15,72,014, citing Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the CBDT. The revenue requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal can be withdrawn by the revenue in view of the tax effect and the CBDT circular, with liberty to revive. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect of ₹15,72,014, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal. The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondent assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-364-2017 Date of Decision: 18.9.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon ...Appellant. Versus Smt. Rani Verma ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 15,72,014/-, 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 September 18, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.09.25 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →