PAWAN KUMAR, PROP. SARASWATI GAS SERVICE, KAITHAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF I.TAX, KURUKSHETRA

ITA/256/2012HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01099334201202 April 2013Author: MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA,MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What were the facts?

The appeal, filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenges an order dated May 15, 2012, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The assessment year in question is 2008-2009. The assessee is Pawan Kumar, Proprietor of Saraswati Gas Service, and the respondent is the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kurukshetra. The appeal was presented before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. After some arguments, the assessee's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal.

What did the High Court hold?

The assessee's counsel, after arguing for some time, wished to withdraw the present appeal. The High Court permitted the withdrawal with liberty to the assessee to raise the question of disallowance of interest in subsequent assessment years in accordance with law. Therefore, no decision was rendered by the High Court on the substantial questions of law framed. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn, and the operative direction was to allow the withdrawal with the specified liberty. No specific finding was given on the merits of the disallowance of interest or the Tribunal's application of mind.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the disallowance of interest payment made under Section 40(A)(2)(a) read with Sections 29 and 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable without the revenue discharging its onus and the Tribunal returning findings on the mandatory requirements of the law. 2. Whether, while passing orders under Section 254(1) of the Act, the Tribunal is required to record findings on material facts with material particulars, or if it can simply affirm the CIT(A) order without applying its mind. Assessee's Contentions: - The disallowance of interest was not sustainable due to the revenue failing to discharge its onus and the Tribunal not providing findings on mandatory legal requirements. - The Tribunal failed to apply its mind and record findings on material facts when affirming the CIT(A) order under Section 254(1). Revenue's Contentions: - No specific contentions are recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 40(A)(2)(a),Section 29,Section 145,Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

**** I.T.A. No.256 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:02.04.2013 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellant. **** HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arises out of an order dated 15.5.2012 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh `A' Bench, Chandigarh for the assessment year 2008- 2009. The assessee has claimed the following substantial questions of law as arises out of an order passed by the Tribunal:- (i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance of interest payment made u/s 40(A)(2)(a) r.w. Section 29, 145 of the Act is sustainable without `discharging the onus' for `returning the findings' on the mandatory requirements of the provisions of law? (ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, while passing `such orders' u/s 254(1), the tri

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 →