THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD vs. SH. SUNIL PRAKASH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/390/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119255201814 March 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal would not be considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was expressly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was disposed of as no further orders were required, given the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn based on monetary limits prescribed by CBDT circulars, without prejudice to the revenue's right to revive the appeal and without the withdrawal being construed as an acceptance of the lower authority's order on merits.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad (revenue) against an order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent was Shri Sunil Parkash. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenged an order passed by the ITAT. The tax effect involved was ₹34,83,850. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. A delay of 45 days in refiling the appeal was condoned, and a separate application sought condonation of 92 days' delay in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed as withdrawn, considering the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal, while praying for liberty to revive it if circumstances changed. The revenue did not present arguments on the merits of the ITAT's order. The ITAT's decision on the merits was not recorded as being challenged by the respondent. The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-390-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-390-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.3.2019 Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant. Versus Shri Sunil Parkash, Faridabad ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL. PRESENT: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Delay of 45 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 34,83,850/-, 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. 3. 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. 4. CM-23579-CII-2018 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of 92 days' delay in filing the appeal. GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.03.15 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-390-2018 -2- Since the appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn, no further orders are required to be passed on the said application and the same is disposed of as such. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 14, 2019 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.03.15 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →