C I T vs. MADAN LAL SAINI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/43/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084536200904 April 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the Revenue stated that in view of an order of even date passed in other appeals (ITA Nos. 468 of 2007 and 641 of 2008), the present appeal had been rendered infructuous. Consequently, the Court ordered that the appeal be disposed of as such. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue. The ITAT's decision to dismiss the Miscellaneous Application, and the underlying reasons for that dismissal, were not adjudicated upon by the High Court in this instance.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 7.7.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'C'. The ITAT's order was in Miscellaneous Application (MA) No. 139/Del/07, arising from ITA No. 228/Del/2004. The assessment period under consideration was a block assessment from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1999. The Revenue's appeal challenged the ITAT's dismissal of its MA, which sought rectification of the ITAT's earlier order dated 10.6.2006. The rectification was intended to restore an assessment order that had been annulled by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in dismissing the M.A. filed by the revenue for rectification of its order dated 10.6.2006 to enable the rejuvenation and restoration of the original assessment order, as the subsequent assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance of order of CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act was annulled by the ITAT? Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded for the assessee. Revenue: The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in dismissing its Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking rectification of its order dated 10.6.2006. The purpose of the MA was to allow for the restoration of the original assessment order, which had been annulled by the ITAT. This annulment followed a subsequent assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 4.4.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant.

Versus Shri M.L. Saini ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel, for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 7.7.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “C”, Delhi in MA No. 139/Del/07 in ITA No. 228/Del/2004 for the block assessment from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1999, claiming the following substantial question of law:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in dismissing the M.A. filed by the revenue for rectification of its order dated 10.6.2006 to enable the rejuvenation and restoration of the original assessment order, as the subsequent assessment order passed by the -2- Assessing Officer in pursuance of order of CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act was annulled by the ITAT?”

Learned counsel for the revenue states that in view of order of even date passed in ITA Nos. 468 of 2007 and 641 of 2008, the present appeal has been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such.

Ordered accordingly. (AJA Y KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 4, 2011 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) gbs JUDGE -3-

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →