CIT, PANCHKULA vs. ASHOK KUMAR

ITA/531/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084649200926 July 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh, dated February 26, 2009. The ITAT's order pertained to a block period ending September 14, 1999, and concerned the assessment of Shri Ashok Kumar and others (respondent-assessees). The core issue revolved around the validity of an assessment order passed under Section 158 BC concerning a searched person, Shri Anil Goel alias Dalal, and its implications for the respondent-assessee who had advanced money through the searched person. The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision to quash the assessment order.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while disposing of the appeal, did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, it noted that the matter was covered by its previous judgment in CIT v. M/s Mukta Metal Works (ITA No. 22 of 2008) dated February 28, 2011. In that prior judgment, similar questions were answered in favour of the Revenue, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Consequently, the High Court followed this precedent and remanded the present appeal to the ITAT for a fresh decision on merits after hearing both parties. The Court explicitly stated that the decision was made without issuing notice to the assessees due to the remand, and the assessees were at liberty to approach the Court if aggrieved by this order. No specific finding was reached on any of the three issues raised by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide three substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the office note dated May 21, 2001, appended to the assessment order under Section 158 BC in the case of the searched person (Shri Anil Goel alias Dalal) constituted a satisfaction notice within the parameters of Section 158 BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the respondent-assessee who advanced money through the searched person. 2. Whether there was a delay in recording satisfaction prior to the issue of notice under Section 158 BD, even when satisfaction was recorded via the office note dated May 21, 2001, appended to the assessment order under Section 158 BC in the case of the searched person. 3. Whether the ITAT was right in upholding the CIT(A)'s order quashing the assessment order on the ground of delayed recording of satisfaction as required under Section 158 BD, even when the Assessing Officer for the searched person and the respondent-assessee was the same. The Revenue contended that the matter was covered by this Court's judgment dated February 28, 2011, in ITA No. 22 of 2008 (CIT v. M/s Mukta Metal Works), which answered similar questions in favour of the Revenue and remanded the matter to the Tribunal. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent-assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 158 BC,Section 158 BD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No.531 of 2009 Date of decision: 26.7.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula -----Appellant. Vs. Shri Ashok Kumar and others -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 26.2.2009 in IT/SS A No.17/Chandi/ 2008 for the block period ending on 14.9.1999 claiming following substantial questions of law:- “1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is right in law in holding that the office note dated 21.5.2001 which was appended to assessment order passed under section 158 BC in the case of searched person Shri Anil Goel alias Dalal, does not constitute a satisfaction notice within the parameter of section 158 BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the respondent-assessee who advanced money through the searched perso

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 →