CIT LUDHIANA vs. MUKESH MITTAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/437/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084544200928 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 Tribunal'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 No specific finding on the merits of the ITAT's order was made as the appeal was withdrawn by the revenue.

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 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹2,82,201. The appeal was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be withdrawn in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11.07.2018, concerning the monetary limit for filing appeals. Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions are recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The learned counsel for the revenue stated that due to the tax effect of ₹2,82,201, they have instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. They prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-437-2009 (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 ` 2,82,201/-, 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 →