MOHAN SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/282/2004HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01051427200404 July 2013Author: MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON,MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in view of the agreement between the counsel for the parties, allowed the appeals. The order dated 30.6.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, for the assessment year 1993-94, was set aside. The decision was based on the precedent set in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnal Versus Puneet Chugh, decided on 07.02.2011, where similar questions of law were decided in favour of the Revenue. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree that the issues have been decided in a prior binding precedent in favour of one party, the appeals can be allowed in terms of that precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 30.6.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The appeals pertain to assessment year 1993-94. The present appeals, ITA No.282 of 2004, ITA No.102 of 2005, and ITA No.142 of 2005, involve the adjudication of the same questions of facts and law. The High Court is disposing of these appeals together, taking facts from ITA No.282 of 2004 for convenience. The parties' counsel have agreed that the questions of law have been answered in favour of the Revenue in a previous judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the questions of law framed in the present appeals have been answered in favour of the revenue. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The counsel for the parties agree that the questions of law framed in the present appeals have been answered in favour of the revenue in ITA No.498 of 2005 titled as “Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnal Versus Puneet Chugh”, decided on 07.02.2011. Therefore, the present appeals may be allowed in terms of the aforementioned judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.282 of 2004 Date of decision: July 04, 2013. Shri Mohan Singh ... Appellant v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Present: Shri Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the respondent. Rajive Bhalla , J. (Oral): This order shall dispose of ITA No.282 of 2004, ITA No.102 of 2005 and ITA No.142 of 2005 as they involve adjudication of same questions of facts and law. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from ITA No.282 of 2004. The revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the correctness of order dated 30.6.2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarhi Bench, for the assessment year 1993-94. Counsel for the parties agree that the questions of law framed in the present appeals have been answered in favour of the revenue in ITA No.498 of 2005 titled as “Commissioner of Income- Tax, Karnal Versus Puneet Chugh”, decided on 07.02.2011, and, ITA No.282 of 2004 -2- therefore, the present appeals may be allowed in terms of the

aforementioned judgment. In view of agreement between counsel for the parties, the appeals are allowed, order dated 30.6.2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, for the assessment year 1993- 94, is set aside.

[ Rajive Bhalla ]

Judge

[Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon] July 04, 2013. Judge kadyan

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →