PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JALANDHAR vs. M/S PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/408/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117623201728 August 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,LOK ADALAT BENCH - 31 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be construed as 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. The Court's decision was based on the revenue's instructions to withdraw due to the tax effect and the relevant CBDT circular.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar (the revenue) against M/s Punjab Gramin Bank Ltd., Kapurthala (the assessee). The appeal challenged an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹ 14,91,234/-. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal in accordance with Circular No. 03/2018 dated July 11, 2018, issued by the CBDT. The revenue also requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue, considering the tax effect and the CBDT circular. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in Circular No. 03/2018, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. They also sought liberty to revive the appeal. The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-408-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.8.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar ...Appellant. Versus M/s Punjab Gramin Bank Ltd., Kapurthala ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. H.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 14,91,234/-, 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 28, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.08.29 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →