CIT, LUDHIANA vs. AMRIK SINGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/601/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093553201002 February 2015Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that counsel for both parties agreed that the present appeal had been rendered infructuous. This agreement was based on the fact that substantial questions of law framed in other related appeals (ITA Nos.92, 323 of 2013, 5, 62 and 64 of 2014) had been answered against the revenue. Consequently, the High Court did not delve into the merits of the questions of law raised in the present appeal. The Tribunal's decision, which was being challenged by the revenue, is not detailed in terms of its findings on the specific issues. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as infructuous due to the consensus between the parties. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order dated 29.01.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench 'A'. The ITAT's order was challenged concerning the invocation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the assessee, Sh. Amrik Singh. The procedural history involves the Assessing Officer's order under Section 143(3) and the subsequent revision by the CIT under Section 263, which was then challenged before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the Assessing Officer's order under Section 143(3) being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue? 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in not appreciating that a firm decision and reasoning were provided in the order passed under Section 263? 3. Whether the ITAT was justified in not appreciating that Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was rightly applicable to the assessee's case? 4. Whether the ITAT was justified in not appreciating that the Assessing Officer had not discussed the applicability of Section 2(22)(e) during assessment proceedings or in the assessment order? The revenue contended that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying the invocation of Section 263. The revenue also argued that Section 2(22)(e) was applicable and that the Assessing Officer had failed to consider it. The assessee's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, beyond the agreement that the appeal had become infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-601-2010 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-601-2010

Decided on : 02.02.2015

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ..... Appellant

VERSUS Sh. Amrik Singh ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. S. WALIA Present: Mr.Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.S.K.Mukhi, Advocate, for the respondent.

******* RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The revenue is before us challenging order dated 29.01.2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh, raising the following substantial questions of law: - “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the CIT has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) on 23.10.2006 was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in not appreciating the fact that a firm decision and reasoning on this issue was given in the order passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961? (iii) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is ITA-601-2010 [ 2 ] justified in law in not appreciating the fact that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were rightly applicable in the assessee's case? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in not appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has nowhere discussed the issue regarding applicability of Section 2(22)(e) during the course of assessment proceedings or in the assessment order?” Counsel for the parties agree that as questions of law framed in ITA Nos.92, 323 of 2013, 5, 62 and 64 of 2014 have been answered against the revenue, the present appeal has been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of accordingly. In view of consensus between counsel for the parties, the present appeal has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.

[ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE 02.02.2015

[ B. S. WALIA ] monica/Shamsher S.Sabharwal JUDGE SHAMSHER SINGH 2015.02.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →