C I T vs. M/S VIJAY KIRAN HOTELS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/388/2007HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01073086200711 May 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue, dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no specific findings were given on the substantial questions of law regarding the validity of service of notice or the timeliness of service.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 28.4.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B). The appeal pertained to the assessment year 1996-97 and concerned M/s Vijay Kiran Hotels (P) Ltd. (respondent-assessee). The appeal was filed challenging the validity of service of a notice. The revenue's counsel appeared, while no one appeared for the respondent-assessee. The appeal was listed for hearing on 11.05.2016.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, a notice given at the 'Reception of the Hotel/Marriage Palace' for service by the Notice Server is a valid service or not? 2. Whether a Notice served after the lapse of 28 days from the date of issuance of notice can be termed as improper service when there is no time limit prescribed in the Income Tax Act for the service of notice? The appellant-revenue, through its learned counsel, submitted that in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, 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. No arguments were recorded for the respondent-assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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-III, Ludhiana .......Appellant Versus M/s Vijay Kiran Hotels (P) Ltd., ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. None 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 28.4.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), in ITA No. 499/Chandi/2004, for the assessment year 1996-97, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, a notice given at the 'Reception of the Hotel/Marriage Palace' for service by the Notice Server is a valid service or not? (ii) Whether a Notice served after lapse of 28 days from the date of issuance of notice can be termed as improper service when there is no time limit prescribed in the Income Tax Act for the service of notice? REEMA SAINI 2016.05.18 11:22 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 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →