ABZONY SAFETY GLASS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/449/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093383201020 September 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The primary reason for dismissal was the assessee's concession that a similar matter had already been decided against the assessee by the same court in a prior appeal (ITA No. 270 of 2010, decided on 7.9.2010). While the judgment does not delve into the merits of the specific questions of law raised in this appeal, the dismissal implies that the court found no substantial question of law warranting further consideration, likely due to the precedent set by the earlier decision. Therefore, no specific findings were made on the individual issues raised, nor was any ratio decidendi established for this particular case beyond the reliance on the prior judgment. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Abzony Safety Glass Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order dated 29.5.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2002-03. The ITAT's order was challenged on several substantial questions of law. The High Court noted that delay in refiling the appeal was condoned. The assessee's counsel conceded that a similar matter had already been decided against the assessee by the same court on 7.9.2010 in ITA No. 270 of 2010 (Abzony Safety Glass Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh).

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide six substantial questions of law raised by the assessee. These included: 1. Whether the CIT(A)'s decision on merits could be interpreted as a "satisfaction for an admission of an appeal" filed beyond the prescribed period, concerning Sections 249 and 250 of the Act. 2. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in not assigning reasons to the pleadings raised in the grounds of appeal. 3. Whether an assessment framed under Section 144 read with Section 153A was valid when the 'reason to believe' under Section 132 was lacking required information. 4. Whether the Tribunal had the power to interpret an order under Section 250 adversely, in light of Section 254 of the Act. 5. Whether the Tribunal's order was sustainable due to contradictory decisions regarding delay for different persons concerning the same material, rendering it perverse. 6. Whether the assessment order was sustainable given that the disallowance of business loss and additions for unexplained investment in share capital and bank deposits were based on surmises and conjecture, despite being explainable. The assessee argued on these points. The revenue's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 249,Section 250,Section 144,Section 153A,Section 132,Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.9.2010 Abzony Safety Glass Ltd. ....Appellant. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

Heard. Delay in refiling condoned.

2.

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 29.5.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench “A”, Chandigarh in ITA No. 331/CHANDI/2009 for the assessment year 2002-03, proposing following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of section 249, 250 of the Act the decision of CIT (A) on merits can be interpreted as a “satisfaction for an admission of an appeal” filed beyond the period -2- prescribed? ii) Whether Tribunal is right in law by not assigning any reason to the pleadings raised in pursuance to the grounds of appeal? iii) Whether the assessment framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A is valid and legal when the required information to form 'reason to believe' u/s 132 of the Act is lacking? iv) Whether on the true and correct interpretations of the provisions of section 254 of the Act Tribunal has the powers for interpreting adversely the order u/s 250 of the Act? v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Tribunal order is sustainable since making contradictory decisions in the hands of different persons qua the same material for delay hence perverse in nature? vi) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case assessment order is sustainable since disallowance of business loss and additions on account of unexplained investment in share capital money and unexplained bank deposits are based upon surmises and conjecture since very well explainable?”

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that similar matter has been decided against the assessee by order dated 7.9.2010 -3- passed in ITA No. 270 of 2010 (Abzony Safety Glass Ltd. v. Commission of Income Tax, Chandigarh).

3.

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 20, 2010 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) gbs JUDGE

More judgments on Section 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →