THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK vs. M/S DAYANAND CONTRACTOR, VPO KHARAINTI, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA/8518/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01146883201806 May 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 construed as 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. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak (the Revenue) against M/s Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The amount in dispute is stated to be ₹29,96,470/-. The procedural history is that the Revenue, through its counsel, sought to withdraw the present appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the Revenue? (Question of procedure) The Revenue argued that it had instructions to withdraw the present appeal due to the tax effect involved (₹29,96,470/-) in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018. The Revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. No arguments were recorded for the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108 ITA No.8518 of 2018 (O&M) Decided on : 06.05.2019 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak . . . Appellant Versus M/s Dayanand Contractor, VPO Kharainti, Rohtak . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 29,96,470/-, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of the Circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, 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. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE May 06, 2019 sonia gugnani (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2019.05.07 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →