COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VINOD KAKKAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/78/2004HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01051600200411 May 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The specific finding of the ITAT regarding the AO's order being beyond the time limitation prescribed under Section 153, and the reasoning thereof, were not adjudicated upon by the High Court due to the revenue not pressing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Ludhiana (the revenue) against an order dated 15.09.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench, Amritsar. The ITAT's order pertained to assessment year 1993-94 and concerned the validity of an order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The dispute revolved around whether the AO's order was time-barred under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue challenged the ITAT's finding that the AO's order was beyond the prescribed limitation period.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order passed by the AO was beyond the time limitation prescribed under Section 153, overlooking the fact that the order was passed within the period of 60 days reckoned from 30.03.2002, the date on which the order of the Hon'ble High Court vacating the stay came to the notice of the AO? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, submitted that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, it did not wish to press the present appeal as the tax effect involved was less than ₹ 20 lacs. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.05.2016 Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Ludhiana .......Appellant Versus Sh. Vinod Kakkar ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order dated 15.09.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, in ITA No. 309 (ASR)/2003, for the assessment year 1993-94, raising the following substantial question of law: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order passed by the A.O. was beyond time limitation prescribed u/s 153 overlooking thereby the fact that the order was passed within the period of 60 days reckoned from 30.03.2002, the date on which the order of the Hon'ble High Court vacating the stay came to the notice of A.O.? REEMA SAINI 2016.05.18 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh -2- Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, as the tax effect involved is less than ` 20 lacs. However, he prays that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It is however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)

JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) 11.05.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.05.18 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 153

All 1,265 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →