M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/45/2020HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01128813201909 January 2020Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court addressed the issue of a potential conflict of interest by noting that one of the members of the Bench had represented the appellant in unrelated sales tax matters. However, the appellant's counsel stated they had no objection to the Bench hearing the matter. Subsequently, the appellant's counsel prayed for permission to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal. The Court allowed this prayer. The main appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty granted. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application was also disposed of as a consequence.

What were the facts?

The appellant, M/s Jindal Steel and Power Limited, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The appeal was against an order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal was filed with a delay of 30 days in re-filing, which was condoned by the Court. During the proceedings, it was noted that one of the judges on the bench had previously represented the appellant in unrelated sales tax matters. The appellant's counsel then sought permission to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should hear the appeal given that one of its members had previously represented the appellant in unrelated sales tax matters? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning judicial propriety and potential bias). 2. Whether the appellant should be permitted to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal under specific circumstances related to proceedings under Section 148 and Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Contentions: Assessee (Appellant): Prayed for permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal if proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are revived and subsequently, proceedings under Section 263 of the Act are not revived. Revenue (Respondent): No arguments recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-45-2020 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.01.2020 M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED ...... APPELLANT VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN **** Present :- Mr. Salil Kapoor, Advocate & Mr. S.K.Gambhir, Advocate & Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate & Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (

Oral

) CM-867-CII-2020 This is an application for condonation of delay of 30 days in re-filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 30 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. ITA-45-2020

1.

At the very outset, it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the appellant that one of the members of this Bench (Avneesh Jhingan, J.) had represented the appellant in some un-related sales tax matters and therefore, this Bench would have no hesitation in recusing from hearing this case, however, Mr. Kapoor says that he would have no objection if we hear this matter. SHABHA 2020.01.13 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-45-2020 (O&M) -2-

2.

After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the appellant prays for permission to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal, in case, the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') are revived and even thereafter the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act are not revived.

3.

Allowed as prayed for.

4.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

5.

Since the main case has been dismissed as withdrawn, the pending Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE (AVNEESH JHINGAN ) 9th January, 2020 JUDGE shabha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SHABHA 2020.01.13 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →