PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I JALANDHAR vs. M/S P.V.T INVESTMENTS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/61/2015HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110162201519 July 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted the liberty to the Revenue 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, as claimed by the Revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original dispute before the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar (Revenue), filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is M/s P.V.T. Investments Ltd. (Assessee). The appeal was filed for Assessment Year(s) not specified in the judgment. The appeal challenged the decision of the ITAT. The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹34,67,690/-. The appeal was decided on July 19, 2018.

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide whether to allow the Revenue to withdraw its appeal. The Revenue's contention was that it had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated July 11, 2018. The Revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The judgment does not record any contentions from the Assessee's side regarding the withdrawal or the liberty sought.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 61 of 2015 Decided on : 19.07.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s P.V.T. Investments Ltd. . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). Ms. Parminder Kaur, Advocate for the respondent(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 34,67,690/-, 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 July 19, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.07.23 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →