PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 LUDHIANA vs. M/S AVON CYCLES LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/414/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110627201609 September 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI,MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty as prayed for by the revenue. 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. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The court did not decide the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-2, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent was M/s Avon Cycles. The appeal was filed for the assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being less than ₹50 lacs, in accordance with Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the CBDT. The revenue 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 Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue, considering the tax effect is below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded. Revenue: The appellant-revenue argued that as the tax effect involved was less than ₹50 lacs, they had instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. They further prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.414 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision :09.09.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-2, Ludhiana ......Appellant Versus M/s Avon Cycles ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE Present : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Chetan Sood, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

(Oral)

: Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is less than ` 50 lacs, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11.07.2018 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. (KRISHNA MURARI) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 09.09.2019

Manoj Bhutani

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2019.09.10 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →