PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. PAWAN KUMAR MALHOTRA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 future case. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case, and no operative directions for remand or deletion were issued.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad (appellant-revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent was Shri Pawan Kumar Malhotra, proprietor of M/s Neuman Engineering Works. The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹29,04,614/-. The appeal was filed for the assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July 2018 issued by the CBDT. The revenue also requested liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if anything survived.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, with liberty to revive. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being ₹29,04,614/-, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with Circular No. 03/2018. They further prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted. The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-386-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.7.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant. Versus Shri Pawan Kumar Malhotra prop. M/s Neuman Engineering Works ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Amit Parsad, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 29,04,614/-, 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 July 18, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.20 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
