Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Sunil Parkash, Faridabad
High Court
14 Mar 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Sunil Parkash, Faridabad
Date of order
14 Mar 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Sunil Parkash, Faridabad, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
ITA-390-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ITA-390-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.3.2019
Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad
Versus
...Appellant.
Shri Sunil Parkash, Faridabad
...Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL.
PRESENT: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1.Delay of 45 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
2.Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the
tax effect involved is ` 34,83,850/-, he has instructions to withdraw thepresent appeal in view of Circular No.03/2018, dated 11[th] July, 2018, issuedby the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. However, he has prayedthat liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal 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3.Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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 betaken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legalissue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in anappropriate case.
4.CM-23579-CII-2018 has been filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of 92 days' delay in filing the appeal.
ITA-390-2018
Since the appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn, no further orders arerequired to be passed on the said application and the same is disposed of assuch.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.