M/S DHODHA HOUSE,KOTKAPURA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers

ITA/119/2001HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01041964200105 February 2020Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the facts of the present appeal were covered by its previous decisions in ITA No. 50-2000 and ITA No. 118 of 2001, the present appeal would be dismissed in the same terms as those prior judgments. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the appellant's counsel that the factual matrix was identical. Therefore, no independent adjudication on the merits of the case was undertaken. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. Any pending applications related to the main case were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The appellant, M/s. Dhodha House, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, for Assessment Year 1989-90. The appeal was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The counsel for the appellant acknowledged that the facts of the present case are identical to those in two previous High Court decisions: ITA No. 50-2000 (decided on 28.2.2014) and ITA No. 118 of 2001 (decided on 19.12.2014), both involving M/s Dhodha House and the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal is covered by the previous decisions of this Court in ITA No. 50-2000 and ITA No. 118 of 2001, concerning the same appellant and revenue, and involving identical facts. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee's counsel did not dispute that the facts of the present case are covered by the aforementioned prior judgments of the High Court. No specific arguments were presented by the assessee's counsel regarding the merits of the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel did not present any arguments as the appeal was being dismissed based on the concession made by the assessee's counsel regarding the applicability of prior judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-119-2001 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-119-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : 5.2.2020 M/s. Dhodha House

...... 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 with Mr. Varun Issar, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)

This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 71 (ASR)/1994 relating to A.Y. 1989-90. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to deny the fact that the facts of the case are covered by the decision of this Court passed in ITA No. 50-2000 decided on 28.2.2014 titled as M/s Dhodha House, Kotakpura vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar & Another and ITA No. 118 of 2001 decided on 19.12.2014 titled as M/s Jalandhar & Another . ANURADHA 2020.02.06 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-119-2001 (O&M) 2

Consequently, the present petition stands dismissed in the same terms as in ITA No. 50-2000 and ITA-118-2001. 4. Since the main case has been decided, the pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI)

JUDGE (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 5.2.2020 anuradha

Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No Whether reportable - Yes/No ANURADHA 2020.02.06 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →