COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PT vs. AMARINDER SINGH.

PDF · subscribers
ITR/216/1999HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01038673199912 December 2013Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA,MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after hearing both counsel and perusing the questions of law, decided to dispose of the present references in terms of its previous orders dated 24.08.2004 and 23.09.2004. These prior orders had already answered similar questions of law and remitted the matters to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court found no reason to deviate from this established course of action. Therefore, the present references were disposed of in line with the precedent set by the Court in ITA No. 69 of 2003 and ITR No. 5 of 1996. The operative direction is to follow the same course as in the cited cases, implying a remittance to the ITAT after answering the questions of law.

What were the facts?

These are Income Tax References (ITR Nos. 216 to 218 of 1999) filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (the revenue) against Amarinder Singh (the assessee). The references pertain to assessment years not explicitly stated in the provided text. The revenue seeks to follow the course of action taken in previous High Court orders dated 24.08.2004 and 23.09.2004, which were passed in ITA No. 69 of 2003 and ITR No. 5 of 1996, respectively. In those prior matters, questions of law were answered, and the cases were remitted to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The revenue proposes a similar disposal for the present references.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should follow the course of action taken in previous High Court orders (dated 24.08.2004 and 23.09.2004) in similar matters, which involved answering questions of law and remitting the cases to the ITAT, for the present Income Tax References (ITR Nos. 216 to 218 of 1999)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The counsel for the assessee acknowledged the correctness of the revenue's assertion regarding previous High Court orders but requested that the order not be treated as a concession on the part of the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The revenue submitted that in view of the High Court's orders dated 24.08.2004 and 23.09.2004 in ITA No. 69 of 2003 and ITR No. 5 of 1996, where questions of law were already answered and the matter remitted to the ITAT, the same course should be followed in the present references.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR Nos.216 to 218 of 1999 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR Nos.216 to 218 of 1999. Decided on:-12.12.2013. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala.

.........Applicant. Versus Amarinder Singh. .........Respondent. CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon. ***** Present:- Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Aalok Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. Rajive Bhalla, J (Oral)

Counsel for the revenue submits that in view of orders dated 24.8.2004 and 23.9.2004 of this Court passed in ITA No.69 of 2003 titled The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Versus Sh. Amarinder Singh Karta of HUG of Late Maharaja Yadvindra Singh, New Moti Bagh Palace, Patiala and ITR No.5 of 1996 titled The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Versus Shri Amrinder Singh (Indv.) Patiala respectively, the questions of law having already been answered and matter having been remitted to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the same course may be followed in the present references.

Counsel for the assessee is not in a position to contest the correctness of the aforesaid assertions but states that the order may not be Yag Dutt 2013.12.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITR Nos.216 to 218 of 1999 -2- treated as a concession on the part of counsel for the assessee.

We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the questions of law and as similar questions have already been answered in the aforesaid appeal and reference, dispose of the present references in terms thereof.

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

(DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON) December 12, 2013 JUDGE 'Yag Dutt' Yag Dutt 2013.12.13 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →