PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), GURGAON vs. SH. SHYAM BIHARI SARDANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/78/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119409201820 July 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE R.C. KATHURIA (RETD.),MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI1 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 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. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon (the revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Shri Shyam Bihari Sardana (the assessee). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹ 27,61,819. 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 requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue is permitted to withdraw the appeal, given the tax effect and the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed in the Circular, they have instructions to withdraw the appeal. They also sought liberty to revive the appeal. The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee's side regarding the withdrawal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-78-2018 Date of Decision: 20.7.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon ...Appellant. Versus Shri Shyam Bihari Sardana ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Arun Biriwal, Advocate and Mr. Tushar Gera, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 27,61,819/-, 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 20, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.23 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →