PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. VINOD GOYAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/214/2015HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109846201504 February 2016Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted the liberty to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal'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 due to the withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad (Revenue) against Vinod Goyal (Assessee). On January 25, 2016, a dispute arose regarding the tax effect involved in the appeal, with the Revenue stating it was ₹23,00,546 and the Assessee claiming it was approximately ₹12.00 lacs to ₹13.00 lacs. The Revenue sought time to verify this. On February 4, 2016, the Revenue's counsel admitted that the tax effect was less than ₹20 lacs, the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the Revenue requested to withdraw the appeal, seeking liberty to revive it if necessary.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal, involving a tax effect less than ₹20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, should be permitted to be withdrawn by the Revenue. Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The Revenue admitted that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than ₹20 lacs, which is the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the Revenue requested to withdraw the appeal, praying for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ********* ITA No. 214 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.02.2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant Vs. Vinod Goyal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG Present : Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate for the respondent. ***** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) On January 25, 2016, there was a dispute between learned counsel for the parties regarding quantum of tax effect involved in this appeal. According to learned counsel for the revenue, the tax effect is ` 23,00,546/- whereas learned counsel for the assessee had claimed that the tax effect is approximately ` 12.00 lacs to ` 13.00 lacs. Learned counsel for the revenue had sought time to verify the said fact. 2. Today, it has been candidly admitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the tax effect involved is less than ` 20 lacs which is the monetary limit prescribed by circular No. 21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. In view of the above circular, learned counsel for the revenue requests for withdrawal of the appeal. However, he prayed that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. 3. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is, however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2016.02.09 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA No. 214 of 2015 (O&M) 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

(RAJ RAHUL GARG) 04.02.2016

JUDGE waseem

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2016.02.09 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →