PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BATHINDA vs. M/S SM BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS BATHINDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/380/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110590201619 July 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda (appellant-revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed for Assessment Year(s) not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute was ₹ 25,98,875/-. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on a CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal can be withdrawn by the revenue in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, concerning tax effect? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded. Revenue: The revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that due to the tax effect involved (₹ 25,98,875/-) and in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, it had instructions to withdraw the present appeal. The revenue 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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 380 of 2016 Decided on : 19.07.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s S.M. Builders & Developers . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Mr. Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 25,98,875/-, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of the circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, he 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 July 19, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.07.23 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →