COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, LUDHIANA vs. M/S CREMICA AGRO FOODS LTD. G.T. ROAD, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/10/2012HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01099161201202 May 20162 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue had submitted that it did not wish to press the appeal due to the tax effect being less than ₹20 lacs, citing CBDT circulars. The Court granted the Revenue liberty 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. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 29.7.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The ITAT's order pertained to assessment year 2005-06 and confirmed an earlier order of the CIT(A) dated 13.8.2010. The dispute arose from an order passed by the CIT under Section 263, which had been quashed by the ITAT on 30.4.2010. The Revenue's appeal to the High Court was pending. The tax effect involved in the appeal was less than ₹20 lacs.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the ITAT was justified in law in confirming the CIT(A)'s order by observing that the ITAT's earlier order dated 30.4.2010, which quashed the CIT's order under Section 263, had not been stayed by the High Court, despite the High Court appeal being pending? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 263). 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the ITAT was justified in law in not deciding the issue on merits and instead referring to its earlier order dated 30.4.2010, given that the Revenue had not accepted that order and was in appeal before the High Court, with the decision still pending? (Question of law and fact). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through its 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 was less than ₹20 lacs. The Revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 02.05.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana .......Appellant Versus M/s Cremica Agro Foods Ltd. ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Sanghi, 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 29.7.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), in ITA No. 1275/CHD/2010, for the assessment year 2005- 06, raising the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) dated 13.8.2010 by observing that the order of ITAT dated 30.4.2010, quashing the order of the CIT u/s 263 has not been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court whereas the decision of the same is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the REEMA SAINI 2016.05.03 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh -2- case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in not deciding the issue on merits but referred its earlier order dated 30.4.2010 passed on the issue of 263 whereas the Revenue has not accepted the same and is in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, the decision of which is still pending? 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) 02.05.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.05.03 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →