COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARKET COMMITTEE

PDF · subscribers
ITA/215/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095538201122 July 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue fairly conceded that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered by an earlier judgment of the same Court. This earlier judgment was in Income Tax Appeal No. 238 of 2010 (The Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Market Committee, Karnal), decided on July 28, 2010, where the appeal preferred by the revenue on a similar issue had been dismissed. Therefore, following the precedent set by its own earlier decision, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated September 30, 2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2004-05 and challenges the Tribunal's decision to uphold the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] order. The CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow the adjustment of excess application of income from previous years as application of income in the current year. The Revenue's appeal to the High Court was based on the contention that there is no provision in Sections 11 to 13 of the Act for such an adjustment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 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 Sections 11 to 13 of the Act in this regard? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning Sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the ITAT was not justified in dismissing their appeal. They contended that the CIT(A)'s direction to allow the adjustment of excess application of income from previous years as application of income in the current year was incorrect because there is no specific provision under Sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that permits such an adjustment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 11,Section 12,Section 13

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Q/ Income Tax Appeal No. 215 of 2011 1(' . . / IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG/\RH. ' "

Date of decision: 22.7.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kamal . --- Appellant Versus I- ~ ::J 0 U :I: ~-:I:« Z ~ ~ <C :r: Cz <3: OJ«-,z::J a. Market Committee, Kamal --- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL . ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITT/\L Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue. . AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, .' 1961 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 30.9.2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench IE', New Delhi (in short "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 3540/0el/2010, relating to the assessment year 2004-05. 2. The following substantial question of law has been claimed for determination of this Court: "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 r f- a::: ::> 0u :r.: C!) -:I: «z~ ~« :r.: cz« QJ cd: J Z ::J a.. -, "", ","~",~""",:"",,-,,,,__,""-_,"XP.H__~!_i!!!llm~,!,,--

3.

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 Sections 11 to 13 of the Act in this regard?" It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that the issue raised in this appeal is covered by the earlier judgment o(this 'Court in Income Tax Appeal No.' 238 of 2010 (The Commissioner of Income-tax VS. Market ':;omm.ittee, Karnal) decided on 28.7.2010 whereby the appeal preferred by the revenue has been dismissed.

4.

July 22, 2011 *rkmalik* In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →