PARVEEN KUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 FATEHABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/216/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117410201711 July 2018Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,LOK ADALAT BENCH - 32 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) submitted that he had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent (revenue) had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No findings were made by the High Court on the entitlement to exemption under Section 54B, the utilization of sale consideration, or the legality and perversity of the Tribunal's order. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Parveen Kumar, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The specific assessment year(s) are not mentioned in the provided text. The core of the dispute revolves around the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), and subsequently upheld by the ITAT. The assessee sought to challenge the ITAT's decision before the High Court.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the view of the AO/CIT that the assessee is not entitled to exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the disallowance of the claim for exemption under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the amount of sale consideration had not been utilized towards the purchase of a new asset (agricultural land), when no such requirement is prescribed in the said section. 3. Whether the order by the Tribunal is bad in law and perverse. Contentions: Assessee: The assessee argued that the Tribunal erred in upholding the disallowance of exemption under Section 54B, particularly questioning the reasoning that the sale consideration must be utilized for the purchase of a new asset, asserting that the section does not prescribe such a requirement. The assessee also contended that the Tribunal's order was bad in law and perverse. Revenue: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 54B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 11.7.2018

Parveen Kumar ..... Appellant Versus

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Fatehabad ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present: Mr.Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

The assessee has approached this Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 claiming following substantial questions of law: “A. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in upholding the view of AO/CIT that Assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s 54B? B. Whether

in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the disallowance of the claim for exemption under section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that amount of sale consideration had not Kamal Deep Sehra 2018.07.12 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh -2-

been utilized towards the purchase of new Asset i.e. agricultural land, when there no such requirement prescribed in the said section? C. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order by the Tribunal is bad in law and perverse?”

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has instructions to withdraw the appeal to which learned counsel for the respondent has no objection.

3.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)

JUDGE

July 11, 2018

(AVNEESH JHINGAN)

KD

JUDGE

Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes / No Whether Reportable:

Yes / No Kamal Deep Sehra 2018.07.12 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 54B

All 814 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →