THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA vs. SH REETHU SINGH CHEEMA PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/379/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117590201723 August 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,LOK ADALAT BENCH - 31 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal as prayed for. The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be construed as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. The legal issue, as 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.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (the Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed for the assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The dispute involved a tax effect of ₹40,36,774. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue should be withdrawn based on the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue argued that due to the tax effect being within the limits prescribed by the circular, the appeal should be withdrawn. The Revenue also sought liberty to revive the appeal if any surviving issue warranted it. The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondent assessee, Sh. Reethu Cheema.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-379-2017 Date of Decision: 23.8.2018 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ...Appellant. Versus Sh. Reethu Cheema ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Z.S. Klar, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 40,36,774/-, 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 August 23, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.08.28 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →