THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S QUARK MEDIA HOUSE INDIA (P) LTD, PHASE-VIII B, MOHALI (PAN: AAACQ0535F)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/556/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117784201708 August 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 Court explicitly stated that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-I, Chandigarh (appellant-revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent was M/s Quark Media House India (P) Ltd. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the provided text. The amount in dispute was ₹ 28,84,696. The procedural history involves the revenue withdrawing the appeal.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal did not have to decide any issues on merits. The sole point for consideration was whether the revenue should be allowed to withdraw the appeal. The revenue, through its counsel, stated that due to the tax effect being ₹ 28,84,696, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. No arguments were recorded for the respondent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 556 of 2017 Decided on : 08.08.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-I, Chandigarh . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s Quark Media House India (P) Ltd. . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 28,84,696/-, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of the circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, 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 August 08, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2018.08.14 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →