COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JDH-I, JDH vs. DEEPAK MITTAL

ITA/681/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093641201015 December 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) filed appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar. The appeals pertained to the assessment year 2001-02 and involved common questions of law. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the assessee's (Sh. Deepak Mittal) Baddi unit could be considered a manufacturer. The Revenue contended that critical machinery operations for chassis parts were performed at another unit in Hoshiarpur, not the Baddi unit.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the Revenue did not dispute that an identical issue had already been decided against the Revenue by the same High Court in the case of the assessee, CIT v. Deepak Mittal, vide judgment dated 17.02.2010 in ITA No. 523 of 2009. Furthermore, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against this judgment by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed on 06.12.2010. Therefore, following its own precedent and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP, the High Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT is right in law in dismissing the appeal of Revenue by relying on the order of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court which is not based on the correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case? (Question of law) 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in treating the assessee’s Baddi (H.P.) Unit as a manufacturer when the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has itself observed that all critical machinery operation of chassis parts i.e. Rear Cover, Differential housing and reduction unit were being done at M/s ITL, Hoshiarpur on precision sophisticated CNC and other special purpose machines? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The ITAT erred in dismissing the revenue's appeal by relying on a High Court order that was not based on a correct appreciation of facts. The ITAT was not justified in treating the Baddi unit as a manufacturer given that critical operations were performed elsewhere.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.681 of 2010 (O&M) & other connected cases being ITA Nos.682, 683 and 684 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.12.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Sh. Deepak Mittal. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Vivek Sethi, Standing counsel for the Revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

This order will dispose of ITA Nos.681, 682, 683 and 684 of 2010 as all the appeals involve common questions of law. I.T.A. No.681 of 2010 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, Amritsar in I.T.A. No.452(ASR)/2009 for the assessment year 2001-02 claiming following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT is right in law in dismissing the appeal of Revenue by relying on the order of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court which is not based on the correct

I.T.A. No.681 of 2010 appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case? (ii) Whether on the facts ad

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 →