COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 JALANDHAR vs. GURKIRPAL SINGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/76/2014HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109640201415 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN1 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 ITAT'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 case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case as the appeal was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I (appellant-revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Shri Gurkirpal Singh, Proprietor of M/s Supreme Industries. The tax effect involved in the appeal is ₹44,70,453/-. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be withdrawn in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, concerning tax effect thresholds for filing appeals. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being ₹44,70,453/-, which is below the threshold specified in the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, they have instructions to withdraw the appeal. They also prayed for liberty to revive the appeal if any aspect survives. The respondent was not represented, and therefore, no arguments were recorded on their behalf.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-76-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.7.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar ...Appellant. Versus Shri Gurkirpal Singh, Prop. M/s Supreme Industries, Jalandhar ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 44,70,453/-, 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 18, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.20 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →