HARYANA STATE COOP. SUPPLY & MKT. FED. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/597/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075336200602 February 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties that identical issues in other appeals (ITA No. 268 of 2006 and ITA No. 157 of 2005) had been remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law, after considering the evidence led by the assessee relating to the donation. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on March 28, 2011. The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits in this instance, opting for a remand.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Haryana State Coop. Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Panchkula, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated June 14, 2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench 'B'. The appeal pertains to the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but relates to a claim for rebate under Section 80G of the Act on a donation of Rs. 5 lac made to the Kurukshetra Development Board. The ITAT had denied the rebate. The High Court noted that the original file was unavailable due to a fire and had been reconstructed. The parties stated that an identical issue had arisen in other appeals (ITA No. 268 of 2006 and ITA No. 157 of 2005), which were remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not allowing rebate under Section 80G of the Act on a donation of Rs. 5 lac to the Kurukshetra Development Board, on the ground that the receipt was not filed before the Assessing Officer or the CIT (Appeals), when it was not requested by either authority? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the finding of the CIT(Appeals) regarding non-filing of the receipt was not challenged in appeal before the Tribunal, when a specific ground for not allowing the rebate was taken as per Rule 8 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules? 3. Whether the claim of rebate under Section 80G of the Act could be declined, especially in view of the fact that the claim had been allowed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated November 10, 1997, passed under Section 143(1) of the Act? Assessee's contentions: - The receipt for the donation was not filed because it was not asked for by the authorities. - The finding of the CIT(Appeals) regarding non-filing of the receipt was challenged before the Tribunal. - The claim should have been allowed as it was previously allowed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1). Revenue's contentions: - Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80G,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 597 of 2006 Date of decision: 2.2.2011 Haryana State Coop. Supply and Marketing Federation Limited Panchkula -----Appellant Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Spl. Range I, Chandigarh ----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the revenue. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.

1.

As per office report, file was not available on account of fire in the Court premises. The file has been reconstructed on the basis of paper book furnished by learned counsel for the appellant.

2.

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) against order dated 14.6.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh bench ‘B’ in ITA No.489/Chandi/2000, claiming following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not allowing rebate under section 80G of the Act on donation made by the appellant to Kurukshetra Development Board amounting to Rs.5 lac on the ground that the receipt was not filed either before the Assessing Officer or the CIT (Appeals) when it was not asked for by either of the authorities? ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the finding of the CIT(Appeals) regarding non filing of receipt was not challenged in appeal before the Tribunal when specific ground in not allowing the rebate was taken as per Rule 8 of the income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules? iii) Whether the claim of rebate under section 80G of the Act could be declined especially in view of the fact that the claim had been allowed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 10.11.1997 passed under section 143(1) of the Act?”

3.

Learned counsel for the parties state that identical issue in the case of the assessee arose in ITA No.268 of 2006 alongwith ITA No.157 of 2005 and vide order dated September 8, 2010, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law after holding that evidence led by the assessee relating to the donation may be looked into.

4.

In view of above, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remand the matter to it for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law in the light of aforesaid judgment. The parties may appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on March 28, 2011. 5. The appeal is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge February 2, 2011

(Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 2

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →