THE COMMISSIONER OF I. TAX vs. M/S D.S. BAHIA AND BROS.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/149/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01074832200611 April 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The dismissal was granted with liberty 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, the ITAT's decision on the merits of the case, concerning the reasons for the second notice under Section 148 and the escapement of income, was not examined or affirmed by the High Court.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated July 25, 2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 1996-97 and challenges the ITAT's decision regarding the validity of a second notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated but is implied to be below INR 20 lacs based on the revenue's submission. The procedural history involves the ITAT's order which is now under challenge 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 holding that the reasons for the second notice issued under Section 148 do not mention anything of escapement of income and it has been issued only on the basis of the earlier order of the ITAT in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1996-97? 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 December 10, 2015, read with Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated March 8, 2016, it did not wish to press the present appeal as the tax effect involved was less than INR 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 260A,Section 148

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 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala .......Appellant Versus M/s D.S. Bahia and Bros ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Zora Singh Klar, 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 25.7.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), in ITA No. 573/Chandi/2003, for the assessment year 1996-97, 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 holding that reasons for the second notice issued u/s 148 do not mention anything of escapement of income and it has been issued only on the basis of earlier order of the ITAT in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1996-97? REEMA SAINI 2016.04.26 10:57 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 10:57 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 →