THE COMMR. OF INCOME TAX,JDR. vs. M/S JAY DEE FABRICS LTD.

ITA/138/2002HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01048773200201 April 20162 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Revenue did not press the appeal before the High Court, citing CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, as the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal as not pressed. 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 considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issues raised were left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was given on the merits of the substantial questions of law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 6.3.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 1998-99 and challenged the ITAT's decision regarding a normal assessment. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated, but the appeal was not pressed due to the tax effect being less than ₹20 lacs, as per CBDT circulars. The procedural history involves the ITAT's order being challenged before the High Court.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was legally correct in applying a decision made for a block period assessment to the normal assessment for the assessment year under consideration, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Whether the ITAT was legally justified in concluding that the assessee maintained complete stock analysis, despite the absence of day-to-day consumption of raw material and production of finished products, particularly in light of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in M/s Punjab Trading Co. Vs. CIT Shimla:53-ITR-335. The Revenue did not press the appeal. 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: 01.04.2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar. .......Appellant Versus M/s Jay Dee Fabrics Ltd. ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. 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 6.3.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, in ITA No.526(ASR)/2001, for the assessment year 1998-99, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in applying the decision given in respect of block period assessment in the case of the same assessee to the normal assessment for the assessment year under consideration? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was maintaining complete stock analysis in the absence of day-to- day consumption of raw material and production of the finished products especially in view of the REEMA SAINI 2016.04.04 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh -2- decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s Punjab Trading Co. Vs. CIT Shimla:53-ITR-335? 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) 01.04.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.04.04 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →