C I T vs. SANDEEP PODDAR PROP.

ITA/134/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080097200829 March 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH,MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II) filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 5.7.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, for the assessment year 2002-03. The ITAT's order was in appeal No. 235/Chandi/2007. The appeal to the High Court raised three substantial questions of law concerning the ITAT's findings on the assessee's business activities and eligibility for deductions. The amount in dispute was less than ₹20 lacs.

What did the High Court hold?

The Revenue's counsel submitted that in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Revenue did not wish to press the present appeal as the tax effect involved was less than ₹20 lacs. The Revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, with liberty granted to the revenue as prayed. It was clarified that the withdrawal would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits, and the legal issues were left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No finding was reached on the substantial questions of law.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was carrying on the business of assembly of computers and publication of books at Parwanoo, despite the Revenue's contention that there was no reliable and cogent evidence to support this, and that material evidence was ignored. 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in concluding that the assessee was carrying on business at Shed No. 90, Sector 1, Parwanoo, based on certificates from different authorities, where none of the certificates bore the address of Shed No. 90, Sector 1, Parwanoo, and all contained different addresses. 3. Whether the ITAT was justified in allowing deductions under Section 80-I/80-IB by holding that publication of books is a manufacturing activity, even though the assessee was not the publisher and got the printing done from places where no such deduction was available. The Revenue argued that the ITAT's findings were not based on reliable evidence and ignored material on record. The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 80-I,Section 80-IB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.03.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II .......Appellant Versus Sh. Sandeep Poddar Prop. ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, 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 5.7.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), in ITA No.235/Chandi/2007, for the assessment year 2002-03, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in holding that the assessee was carrying its business of assembly of computer and publication of books at Parwanoo in the absence of any reliable and cogent evidence by ignoring the material and evidence on record? (ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances o

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →