COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,LDH vs. M/S RAJ & SANDEEP LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/22/2002HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01040608200211 April 2016Author: THE TAXING OFFICER,MR. JUSTICE SATPAL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, at the instance of the revenue. The revenue cited Circular No. 21/2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) as grounds for not pressing the appeal, due to the tax effect being less than ₹20 lacs. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted. 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 raised by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no finding was given on the substantial question of law by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against the order dated 20.06.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B). The Tribunal's order pertained to ITA No. 798/Chandi/93 for the assessment year 1990-91. The dispute involved the deletion of an addition made by the revenue under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning advance excise duty paid by the assessee, M/s Raj and Sandeep Ltd. (respondent). The advance excise duty was neither debited to the Profit and Loss Account, nor the sales account, nor made part of the purchase price.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition under Section 43B on account of advance excise duty paid which was neither debited to the Profit and Loss Account nor sales account or made part of the purchase price? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed by the revenue. 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 43B,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: 11.04.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana .......Appellant Versus M/s Raj and Sandeep 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. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, 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 20.6.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), in ITA No. 798/Chandi/93, for the assessment year 1990- 91, raising the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition u/s 43B on account of advance excise duty paid which was neither debited to P&L Account nor sales account or made part of the purchase price?” 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) 11.04.2016 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 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →