CIT KARNAL vs. RAJESH GOEL PROP. M./S SAT PAL AND SONS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/226/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093138201017 January 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The Court noted that the impugned order of the ITAT was consequential to a previous ITAT order which had already been upheld by the High Court on March 16, 2010. Since no further progress had been reported by the Revenue regarding their challenge to the High Court's earlier order, and the present appeal was merely consequential, the Court found no basis to entertain it. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that it did not present a substantial question of law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, appealed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2001-02. The Assessee, Sh. Rajesh Goel, proprietor of two concerns, had offered additional income during assessment upon being confronted with particulars of bogus purchases. The Commissioner of Income Tax invoked Section 263, directing a fresh assessment as the addition of Rs. 10 lac was considered insufficient compared to the higher amount of bogus purchases. The ITAT set aside the Commissioner's order, noting the surrendered amount was finalized in the presence of senior tax authorities. This ITAT order was previously upheld by the High Court on March 16, 2010. The Revenue stated it was challenging the High Court's prior order and sought to keep the present appeal pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration before the High Court when the impugned order of the ITAT is consequential to a previous ITAT order that has already been upheld by the High Court. (Section 260A) Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded for the Assessee. Revenue: The Revenue contended that the impugned order was consequential to an earlier ITAT order which was upheld by the High Court on March 16, 2010. The Revenue was in the process of challenging the High Court's order of March 16, 2010, and requested that the present matter be kept pending to await the outcome of that challenge.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.226 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.1.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Sh. Rajesh Goel. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing counsel for the Revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

On 28.7.2010, following order was passed:- “1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.513/ Del/2009 dated 22.4.2009 for the assessment year 2001-02. 2. The Assessee is the proprietor of two concerns. During assessment, the Assessee having been confronted with correctness of particulars of purchase from firms which were bogus, the Assessee offered additional income which led to making of additions in terms of the statement made. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax invoked the juri iction under Section 263 and directed a fresh assessment on the ground that addition made was only of Rs.10 lac, while bogus purchases were of much higher amount. On appeal by the Assessee, the said order

I.T.A. No.226 of 2010 was set aside. It was observed that the surrendered amount was finalised in the presence Commissioner of Income Tax and Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. The said order was upheld by this Court in order dated 16.3.2010 in I.T.A. No.120 of 2010 in The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sh. Rajesh Goel.

3.

Learned counsel for the Revenue states that impugned order in the present case is consequential to the order of the Tribunal which was upheld by this Court on 16.3.2010. The Revenue is in the process of challenging order of this Court dated 16.3.2010 and this matter may be kept pending to await the outcome thereof.”

Since no further progress has been reported on behalf of the revenue and the impugned order is only consequential to earlier order of the Tribunal which has been upheld by this Court, no substantial question of law arises.

The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 17, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →