COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VIJAY KIRAN HOTELS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/526/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075258200611 May 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN2 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, decided not to press the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, granting 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 court explicitly stated that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no finding was given on the substantial questions of law raised.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 28.04.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench (B). The appeal pertained to the assessment year 1995-96 and concerned M/s Vijay Kiran Hotels (P) Ltd. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of a notice served by the Income Tax Department. The ITAT's order was under challenge before the High Court.

What were the issues?

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 valid service or not? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether a Notice served after a 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? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through its learned counsel, submitted that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, it did not wish to press the 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 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. 498/Chandi/2004, for the assessment year 1995-96, 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 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 →