PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, CHANDIGARH vs. DEVINDER SINGH GILL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/88/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01000565201902 March 2020Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the prayer made by the Revenue's counsel. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the appellant (Revenue) to take up all the grounds of challenge mentioned in the connected appeal bearing ITA No. 139 of 2019. Since the main case was dismissed as withdrawn, any pending applications were also disposed of. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh (the Revenue) under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Divisional Bench, Chandigarh, dated 24.08.2018. This order was passed in Miscellaneous Application (MA) No. 127/Chd/2018, which was in relation to the main appeal ITA No. 498/Chd/2015. The Revenue's counsel stated that the appeal was directed against orders passed in MAs No. 127 and 128 of 2018 and challenged the main orders in ITA No. 498 and 499 of 2015. The counsel prayed for permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to raise all grounds of challenge in a connected appeal, ITA No. 139 of 2019.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue should be permitted to withdraw the present appeal (ITA No.88 of 2019) with liberty to take up all grounds of challenge in a connected appeal (ITA No. 139 of 2019)? Assessee's Contention: Not recorded as the respondent was not present. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its learned Senior Standing counsel, stated that the appeal was directed against orders passed in MAs No. 127 and 128 of 2018 and challenged the main orders in ITA No. 498 and 499 of 2015. The counsel prayed for permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to take up all the grounds of challenge mentioned in the connected appeal bearing ITA No. 139 of 2019.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.88 of 2019 (O&M) 1 209 (2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.88 of 2019 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.03.2020 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh. ...... Appellant versus Sh. Devinder Singh Gill ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN *** Present :- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Divisional Bench, Chandigarh dated 24.8.2018 passed in MA No. 127/Chd/2018 in ITA No. 498/Chd/2015 annexed hereto as Annexure A-4. 2. Learned Senior Standing counsel states that this appeal is directed against the orders passed in MAs No. 127 and 128 of 2018 and the appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the main order passed in ITA No. 498 and 499 of 2015. In these circumstances, she prays for permission to withdraw this appeal with liberty to take up all the grounds of challenge mentioned in connected appeal bearing ITA No. 139 of 2019. 3. Allowed as prayed for. Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn with above said liberty. ASHISH 2020.03.06 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

ITA No.88 of 2019 (O&M) 2 4. Since the main case has been dismissed as withdrawn, the pending application if any also stands disposed of.

( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( AVNEESH JHINGAN ) JUDGE 02.03.2020 ashish/anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No ASHISH 2020.03.06 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →