PR. COMMOISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), GURGAON vs. SMT. RANI VERMA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty sought by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal. 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, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The Court's decision was based on the revenue's instructions and the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals.
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 tax effect involved in the appeal is ₹ 9,87,395/-. 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 (CBDT). The revenue requested liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive, based on the revenue's instructions and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded as none appeared for the respondent. Revenue: The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, the appeal should be withdrawn. They also prayed for liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-367-2017 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 ` 9,87,395/-, 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 →- 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
