CIT LUDHIANA vs. MUKESH MITTAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/738/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093704201028 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed. 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 claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana (the 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 appeal concerned assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹29,19,750. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11.07.2018 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. The High Court considered the revenue's request for withdrawal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue is permitted to withdraw the appeal in light of the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018? (Question of law) The revenue argued that due to the tax effect of ₹29,19,750, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal. The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondent, Mukesh Mittal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-738-2010 (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 ` 29,19,750/-, 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 →