C I T vs. PUSHPA DEVI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, based on Circular No. 21/2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, as the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 20 lacs. The Revenue was granted liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The Court 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 claimed by the Revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was reached on the substantial question of law raised.
What were the facts?
The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated July 17, 2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench (B). The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 1992-93 and concerns the sale consideration of property No. 1637, Urban Estate-II, Hisar, in the hands of the assessee, Mrs. Pushpa Devi, who was the seller. The ITAT had directed that the sale consideration be adopted at Rs. 3,75,000/-. The Revenue's appeal challenged this direction, arguing it was contrary to a previous ITAT Special Bench decision concerning the purchaser of the same property.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in directing to adopt the sale consideration in respect of property No. 1637, Urban Estate-II, Hisar, at Rs. 3,75,000/- in the hands of the assessee seller, which is contrary to the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the appeal of Shri Mange Ram Mittal (the purchaser), where the market value of the impugned property on the date of sale was directed to be adopted at Rs. 12,30,725/-? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded for the assessee. Revenue: The Revenue argued that the ITAT's direction to adopt the sale consideration at Rs. 3,75,000/- was contrary to a Special Bench decision of the ITAT concerning the purchaser of the same property, which had determined the market value at Rs. 12,30,725/-. The Revenue relied on Circular No. 21/2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) issued by the CBDT, stating that due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 20 lacs, they did not wish to press the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 31.03.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar .......Appellant Versus Mrs. Pushpa Devi ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. 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 17.7.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (B), in ITA No.1317/DEL/07, for the assessment year 1992-93, raising the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. ITAT is right in law in directing to adopt sale-consideration in respect of property No.1637, Urban Estate-II, Hisar at Rs.3,75,000/- in the hands of assessee seller which is contrary to the decision of ld. ITAT Special Bench ''B'' New Delhi dated 18.08.2006 in the appeal of Shri Mange Ram Mittal, the purchaser, passed in IT (SS) A No.138/Del/1997 where market value of impugned property on the date of sale was directed to be adopted at Rs.12,30,725/-? REEMA SAINI 2016.04.04 13:52 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) 31.03.2016 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 →- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
