COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NEELAM GUPTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/543/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075277200618 January 2017Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN1 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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. The specific findings of the ITAT on the merits of the case were not discussed or decided by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad (appellant-revenue) against Smt. Neelam Gupta (respondent-assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The amount in dispute is stated to be ₹2 lakh. The procedural history is that the revenue, through its counsel, sought to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue? (Question of procedure). The revenue argued that it had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being ₹2 lakh, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. 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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.543 of 2006 Date of decision: 18.01.2017 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant Versus Smt. Neelam Gupta ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

Present: - Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate, for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 2 lakh, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, he 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 Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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 (RAMENDRA JAIN) January 18, 2017 JUDGE R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Ravinder Singh 2017.01.19 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →