C I T vs. VASUDHA MUNJAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/160/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080126200825 April 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

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 given on the substantial question of law regarding the ITAT's cancellation of the Commissioner's order under Section 263.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ludhiana-II, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The ITAT's order was in relation to ITA No. 310/Chandi/2006 for the assessment year 2001-02. The appeal challenged the ITAT's decision to cancel an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act on 24.3.2006. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated, but the appeal was filed by the Revenue. The procedural history involves the ITAT's order being challenged before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax dated 24.3.2006 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The Revenue contended that the appeal was being withdrawn in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, as the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs. The Revenue sought liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee, Miss Vasudha Munjal, on the merits of the case.

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: 25.04.2016 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ludhiana-II .......Appellant Versus Miss Vasudha Munjal ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Advocate for the appellant. 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 30.4.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), in ITA No. 310/Chandi/2006, for the assessment year 2001- 02, raising the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in cancelling the order of Commissioner of Income Tax dated 24.3.2006 passed u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961? REEMA SAINI 2016.04.26 14:44 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) 25.04.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.04.26 14:44 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 →