KAPOOR SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BHIWANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/131/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110315201619 January 2017Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose in the present appeal. This conclusion was based on the fact that an identical appeal (ITA-90-2016) filed by the appellant-assessee for the assessment year 2002-03, challenging the same order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated September 15, 2015, had already been dismissed by this Court on May 23, 2016. Furthermore, a subsequent review application (RA-CR-196-CII-2016) filed against the order of dismissal was also rejected by this Court on August 5, 2016. Consequently, the principle of res judicata and judicial discipline dictated that the present appeal, raising identical substantial questions of law, must also be dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appellant-assessee, Kapoor Singh, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated September 15, 2015, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. This order pertained to four assessment years: 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04, consolidated under ITA Nos. 5044, 5045, 5046, and 5047/DEL/2011. The assessee's counsel conceded that an identical appeal (ITA-90-2016) concerning assessment year 2002-03, against the same ITAT order (Annexure A-7), had been dismissed by the High Court on May 23, 2016. Furthermore, a review application against this dismissal was also rejected on August 5, 2016.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal raises any substantial question of law, given the dismissal of a similar appeal for a related assessment year by this Court. (Question of law, turning on Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee's counsel fairly submitted that an identical appeal (ITA-90-2016) for assessment year 2002-03, against the same ITAT order, had been dismissed by this Court. A review application against that dismissal was also rejected. This implicitly suggests the assessee acknowledged the binding precedent set by the Court's prior decision. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not present any arguments as no argument was recorded for the respondent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-131-2016 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-131-2016 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.01.2017 Kapoor Singh ..... Appellant Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Dhawal Bhandari, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.

The appellant-assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, impugning the order dated 15.09.2015 (Annexure A-7) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Tribunal') in ITA Nos. 5044, 5045, 5046, 5047/DEL/2011, relating to assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. 2. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal vide order impugned herein had decided the appeals relating to four assessment years i.e. 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 bearing ITA Nos. 5044, 5045, 5046, 5047/DEL/2011. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that against the decision of the Tribunal, Annexure A-7 in ITA No. 5046/DEL/2011 for the assessment year 2002-03, the appellant had filed ITA-90-2016 before this Court, claiming identical substantial questions of law. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order Rishu Kataria 2017.01.30 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

ITA-131-2016 (O&M) -2- dated 23.05.2016. It was also not disputed that review application i.e. RA- CR-196-CII-2016 against the said order dated 23.05.2016, was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2016. 3. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE January 19, 2017 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Rishu Kataria 2017.01.30 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →