COMMI. OF IT, FARIDABAD vs. OM PARKASH SINGHAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/69/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095783201117 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival as prayed. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal 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 future 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 an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Shri Om Parkash Singhal. The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹30,37,800. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The revenue also requested liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. They further prayed for liberty to revive the appeal if any aspect of the matter survived. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-69-2011 Date of Decision: 17.7.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant. Versus Shri Om Parkash Singhal ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Parshad, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 30,37,800/-, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of Circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. However, he 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. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 17, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.19 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →