COMMR. OF INCOME TAX vs. SURJIT SINGH MATHAROO

ITA/179/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01074864200611 April 20162 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel, citing CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part), stated that 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 therein. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits, and the legal issue raised by the Revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was given on the merits of the substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana-I, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 09.09.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The appeal pertained to the block period from 01.04.1988 to 19.11.1998 and challenged the ITAT's decision regarding an agreement dated 14.08.1997 concerning the payment of on-money over and above the apparent consideration. The amount in dispute was not explicitly stated but was implied to be below a certain threshold for the revenue to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in ignoring the collected material evidence to support the agreement dated 14.8.1997 for payment of on money over and above the apparent consideration? (Question of law) The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in ignoring material evidence that supported the existence of an on-money payment. The specific arguments or precedents relied upon by the Revenue are not detailed in the judgment. The Assessee's contentions are not recorded as the appeal was not pressed.

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: 11.04.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana-I, Ludhiana .......Appellant Versus Sh. Surjit Singh Matharoo ......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 9.9.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (A), in IT(SS)A No. 28/CHANDI/2002, for the Block period 1.4.1988 to 19.11.1998, raising the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in ignoring the collected material evidence to support the agreement dated 14.8.1997 for payment of on money over and above the apparent consideration? REEMA SAINI 2016.04.28 10:28 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 2016.04.28 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →