(O&M) SHIV KUMAR OHRI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/99/2001HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01042147200106 February 2020Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

These two appeals, ITA No.99 of 2001 and ITA No.100 of 2001, were filed by Shiv Kumar Ohri (HUF) against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another. The appeals were filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar. The specific ITAT orders were ITA No.234(ASR)/1993 and MA No.19(ASR)/2000 in ITA No.734(ASR)/1993, pertaining to the assessment year 1989-90. The core issue in both appeals concerned a demand of ₹33,010/-.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, considering the trivial nature of the impact of the demand (₹33,010/-), decided not to adjudicate the appeals on their merits. The court explicitly stated that it did not deem it appropriate to decide the appeals and therefore dismissed them. The court further noted that the questions of law would be left to be decided in some other case. No specific findings were made on the merits of the dispute concerning the ₹33,010/- demand. The operative direction was the dismissal of both appeals. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the court chose not to decide them at all.

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide the appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals concerned a demand of ₹33,010/- for the assessment year 1989-90. The appellant, Shiv Kumar Ohri (HUF), presumably sought to challenge the ITAT's decision regarding this demand. The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar, would have defended the ITAT's order. The judgment does not explicitly state the specific questions of law framed by the parties or the Tribunal. However, the underlying dispute revolves around the validity of the ₹33,010/- demand. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by either the assessee or the revenue, nor does it name any authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by either side.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

{1} 414-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 06.02.2020

1.

Shiv Kumar Ohri (HUF) Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another Respondents

2.

ITA No.100 of 2001 Shiv Kumar Ohri (HUF) Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. With Mr. Varun Issar, Jr. Standing Counsel. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) [1] These two appeals have been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar in ITA No.234(ASR)/1993 and MA No.19(ASR)/2000 in ITA No.734(ASR)/1993 for the assessment year 1989-90 respectively. [2] The issue involved in both the appeals relates to demand of `33,010/-. [3] Considering the trivial nature of impact, we do not deem it PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.02.07 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH {2} appropriate to decide the a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →