COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARKET COMMITTE

PDF · subscribers
ITA/217/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095540201129 September 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA,MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court observed that the substantial questions of law raised in the present appeal were identical to those raised in ITA No. 238 of 2010, which this Court had dismissed on July 28, 2010. Additionally, a Special Leave Petition arising from ITA No. 241 of 2010, decided along with ITA No. 238 of 2010, was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on July 15, 2010. In light of these previous decisions, the High Court found no substantial question of law arising in the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The specific findings of the ITAT on the adjustment of excess application of income and unabsorbed depreciation are not detailed, as the High Court's decision was based on precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Karnal (the Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be related to previous years' applications of income and unabsorbed depreciation. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal on issues concerning the adjustment of excess application of income from previous years and the benefit of unabsorbed depreciation and carried forward losses. The High Court noted that similar substantial questions of law were raised in a previous appeal (ITA No. 238 of 2010), which was dismissed by the High Court on July 28, 2010. Furthermore, a Special Leave Petition arising from a related appeal (ITA No. 241 of 2010) was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on July 15, 2010. The amount in dispute is not specified.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide two substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue: 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in dismissing the Revenue's appeal regarding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow the adjustment of excess application of income from previous years as application of income in the current year, despite the absence of a specific provision in Sections 11 to 13 of the Act. 2. Whether the ITAT was right in law in allowing the assessee the benefit of unabsorbed depreciation and carried forward losses when there is no specific statutory provision and Sections 70 to 80 of the Act have not been specifically made applicable. Contentions: Assessee: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. Revenue: The Revenue argued that there are no provisions in Sections 11 to 13 of the Act that permit the adjustment of excess application of income from previous years in the current year. Furthermore, the Revenue contended that the benefit of unabsorbed depreciation and carried forward losses should not be allowed as there is no specific statutory provision for it, and Sections 70 to 80 of the Act have not been made applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 11,Section 12,Section 13,Section 70,Section 80

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.9.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Karnal …..Appellant vs.

Market Committee, Samlkha …..Respondent CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: - Mr. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) raising the following substantial questions of law: - “i) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in dismissing the appeal of the revenue on the issue regarding the action of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow the adjustment of the excess amount of application of income of previous years as application of income in the current year, despite there being no provision in Section 11 to 13 of the Act in this regard”. ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. ITAT is right in law in allowing the assessee the benefit of unabsorbed depreciation and carried forwarded when there is no provision in the statue and provisions of Section 70 to 80 have not been specifically made applicable.” above, also stand dismissed on 15.7.2010 by Hon’ble the Supreme Court.

In view of the said fact, for the reasons recorded in ITA No. 238 of 2010 decided on 28.7.2010, we do not find any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE 29.9.2011 preeti 2

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →