PR. COMMOISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), GURGAON vs. SH. ANIL VERMA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/366/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117576201718 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case as the appeal was withdrawn.

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 Shri Anil Verma (the assessee). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹18,51,614/-. The appeal was filed in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue should be permitted to withdraw the appeal given the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: No arguments were recorded for the respondent (assessee). Revenue: The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue stated that due to the tax effect of ₹18,51,614/-, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. They 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-366-2017 Date of Decision: 18.9.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon ...Appellant. Versus Shri Anil 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 ` 18,51,614/-, 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 →