COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR vs. GAUTAM AGGARWAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/18/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080146200811 April 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel, citing CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), stated they did not wish to press 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 something survives. It was clarified that the withdrawal would not be an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issues were left open for adjudication in an appropriate case. Therefore, no finding was reached on the substantial questions of law raised.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Amritsar) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated May 11, 2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. The ITAT's order pertained to the assessment year 1998-99 and had set aside a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The dispute arose from alleged defects in the 'reasons' recorded for reopening the assessment, specifically a typographical mistake in the assessee's name, despite the notice being addressed correctly and containing accurate facts and particulars. The assessee is Sh. Gautam Aggarwal.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by setting aside the notice under Section 148 solely because the 'reasons' mentioned a wrong name, despite the notice being addressed correctly and containing accurate facts, and whether this defect was curable under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in concluding that the recorded reasons did not pertain to the assessee, even though the reasons mentioned the correct name and particulars, with only a subsequent paragraph containing a typographical error. 3. Whether the Tribunal's finding was perverse, assuming the reasons for reopening did not pertain to the assessee when they factually contained the correct name, particulars, and were provided to the assessee prior to assessment completion. 4. Whether the ITAT erred in concluding that the defect/mistake in the reasons was not curable under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that the mistake was a curable defect under Section 292B. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee on these points, but their position was implicitly that the defects were not curable and vitiated the notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 148,Section 292B

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-II, Amritsar .......Appellant Versus Sh. Gautam Aggarwal ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Denesh Goyal, 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 11.5.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, in ITA No. 220(ASR/2006), for the assessment year 1998-99, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in law in setting aside the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act merely on the ground that since the 'reasons' mentioned a wrong name though addressed in the correct name and address and correctly containing facts and particulars concerning the assessee to whom the notice was intended to be issued and by not considering the same to be a mistake and defect REEMA SAINI 2016.04.26 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh -2- within the scope of section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in concluding that the reasons recorded did not pertain to the assessee, whose assessment was sought to be reopened though the reasons recorded by the AO on 29.9.2003 were mentioning the correct name and correct particulars and it was only the subsequent para which contained the typographical mistake regarding the name of the assessee? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding returned by the Tribunal is perverse as the Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment did not pertain to the assessee though factually the reasons recorded for the reopening the assessment were not only containing the correct name and particulars but also the reasons had been given to the assessee on 17.3.2005 prior to the completion of the assessment? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has erred in concluding that the defect/mistake in the reasons was not curable under section 292B on the Income Tax Act? 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. REEMA SAINI 2016.04.26 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh -3- 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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →