COMMR. OF INCOME TAX KARNAL vs. DEEP CHAND

PDF · subscribers
ITA/357/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075068200627 August 2013Author: MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON,MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided to take the appeal on board and answer the question of law in favour of the revenue. This decision was based on the concession made by the respondent-assessee's counsel that the controversy was covered by previous judgments. The Court explicitly referred to the order dated 04.07.2013, passed in ITA No.255 of 2005 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Kamlesh Rani) and ITA No.256 of 2005 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. Smt. Mamta Rani). The ratio decidendi is that where a party concedes that the issue is covered by a prior favorable judgment for the opposing party, the appeal will be decided accordingly. As a consequence, the appeal was allowed, and the order dated 22.09.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'SMC' New Delhi, was set aside. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal (the revenue) against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'SMC' New Delhi, dated 22.09.2005. The assessee is Deep Chand. The specific assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The appeal was filed in 2006. A subsequent application was filed by the respondent (assessee) seeking to decide the appeal in favour of the revenue, citing a precedent. The counsel for the respondent conceded that the controversy was covered in favour of the revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal has already been answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee in previous, related appeals (ITA No.256 of 2005 and ITA No.255 of 2005)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The respondent-assessee, through their counsel, fairly conceded that the controversy in the present appeal is covered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. No specific authorities or precedents were named by the assessee's counsel in support of this concession, other than acknowledging the binding nature of the cited judgments. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through their counsel, argued that the substantial question of law in this appeal is identical to that decided in ITA No.256 of 2005 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. Smt. Mamta Rani) and ITA No.255 of 2005 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Kamlesh Rani), both decided on 04.07.2013. The revenue contended that these prior decisions were in their favour.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.17262-CII of 2013 and Income Tax Appeal No.357 of 2006

Date of Order: 27.08.2013 Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal ...Appellant Versus Deep Chand, Purewal Colony, Panipat Haryana. ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the applicant-respondent Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the non-applicant-appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this application, filed by the respondent, is for deciding the appeal in favour of the revenue as the substantial question of law arising for consideration has already been answered in favour of the revenue in ITA No.256 of 2005 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. Smt. Mamta Rani), which in turn was decided on the basis of judgment in ITA No.255 of 2005 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Kamlesh Rani), both decided on 04.07.2013. Counsel for the respondent, fairly concedes that the controversy in the present petition is covered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. In view of the statements made by counsel for the parties, Kumar Naresh N 2013.08.31 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh -2- we take the appeal on Board and answer the question of law in favour of the revenue, in terms of order dated 04.07.2013, passed in ITA No.255 of 2005 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Kamlesh Rani) and ITA No.256 of 2005 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. Smt. Mamta Rani). As a consequence, the appeal is allowed and order dated 22.09.2005, passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'SMC' New Delhi, is set aside. (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE August 27, 2013 (DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON) nt

JUDGE Kumar Naresh N 2013.08.31 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →