COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL vs. OM PARKASH MUNJAL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty sought by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal. The Court clarified that the withdrawal 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 future case. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana (the revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Sh. Om Parkash Munjal. The tax effect involved in the appeal was Rs. 2,43,865. The appeal was decided on August 23, 2016, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the revenue is entitled to withdraw the appeal, and if so, under what conditions? The revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that due to the tax effect being Rs. 2,43,865, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The revenue also sought liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if any aspect survived. The respondent's counsel was present but no specific arguments were recorded for the respondent on the withdrawal application.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No. 414 ITA-77-2001
Decided on : 23.08.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ..... Appellant
VERSUS Sh. Om Parkash Munjal ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL Present: Mr.Zora Singh Klar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent.
******* S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is Rs.2,43,865/-, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of the circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015, 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 Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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.
[ S.J. VAZIFDAR ]
CHIEF JUSTICE 23.08.2016
[ DEEPAK SIBAL ] shamsher JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Shamsher Singh 2016.08.24 17:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
