CIT LUDHIANA vs. MUKESH MITTAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/435/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084542200928 November 2018Bench: 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. It was 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 claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding on the merits of the ITAT's order was given as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana (the revenue) against Mukesh Mittal (the assessee). The appeal challenged an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹3,46,930. The appeal was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by the revenue in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11.07.2018, considering the tax effect of ₹3,46,930? Assessee's contentions: No specific contentions are recorded in the judgment for the assessee as the appeal was withdrawn by the revenue. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, stated that due to the tax effect of ₹3,46,930, it 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. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-435-2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 28.11.2018

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ...Appellant Versus

Mukesh Mittal ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate,

for the appellant. * * * * KRISHNA MURARI, C.J. (ORAL)

Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 3,46,930/-, she 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, she 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 28.11.2018 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

AMODH SHARMA 2018.11.30 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →