CIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S MAHESHWARI SYNTHETICS(P) LTD. HOSHIARPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/256/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084344200911 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 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 finding was rendered on the substantial question of law concerning the use of seized materials for assessment. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as not pressed, with liberty granted.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Ludhiana) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated October 17, 2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 1997-98 and concerns M/s Maheshwari Synthetics (P) Ltd., Hoshiarpur. The core issue revolves around the use of materials seized during a search in a previous year for the assessment of a relevant assessment year. The tax effect involved in the appeal was stated to be less than ₹20 lacs.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, materials pertaining to the previous year seized during the course of search can be used for the purpose of assessment relevant to the assessment year? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through its counsel, 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 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.

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 (Central), Ludhiana .......Appellant Versus M/s Maheshwari Synthetics (P) Ltd., Hoshiarpur ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, 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 17.10.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, in ITA No. 374(ASR)/2003, for the assessment year 1997-98, raising the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case materials pertaining to the previous year seized during the course of search can be used for the purpose of assessment relevant to assessment year? REEMA SAINI 2016.05.20 14:31 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 2016.05.20 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →