ARUN UMMAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/397/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093326201015 September 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that a similar matter had been decided against the assessee by this Court on September 7, 2010, in ITA No. 270 of 2010 (Abzony Safety Glass Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh). Based on this precedent, the High Court dismissed all nine appeals. The reasoning for the dismissal is that the present appeals involve identical questions of law and fact as the previously decided case. Therefore, the principle of stare decisis applies, and the outcome would be the same. The specific findings on each of the six issues raised by the assessee are not elaborated upon in this order, as the appeals were disposed of based on the earlier judgment. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns nine appeals filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated May 29, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The appeals challenge the ITAT's decision regarding various aspects of the income tax assessment. The assessee is Arun Ammat, Chandigarh, and the respondent is the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh. The assessment years are not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves an appeal to the ITAT, which is now under challenge before the High Court. The High Court notes that a similar matter was decided against the assessee by this Court on September 7, 2010, in ITA No. 270 of 2010 (Abzony Safety Glass Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh).

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide six substantial questions of law raised by the assessee: 1. Whether the CIT(A)'s decision on merits can be interpreted as a "satisfaction for an admission of an appeal" filed beyond the prescribed period, under Sections 249 and 250 of the Act. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in not assigning reasoning to the pleadings raised in the grounds of appeal. 3. Whether an assessment framed under Section 144 read with Section 153A is valid when the 'reason to believe' under Section 132 was lacking. 4. Whether the Tribunal has the power to interpret adversely or pass an order under Section 250 of the Act, as per Section 254 of the Act. 5. Whether the Tribunal's order is sustainable and perverse due to contradictory decisions regarding delay in the hands of different persons for the same material. 6. Whether the assessment order is sustainable as additions on account of household expenses and bank deposits were based on surmises and conjecture and were explainable. The assessee argued on these points. The revenue's contentions 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: 15.9.2010 Arun Ammat, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus Commission of Income Tax, Chandigarh ...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.

This order will dispose of a bunch of nine appeals, i.e. ITA Nos. 397 to 400, 404 and 406 to 409 of 2010 as the identical questions of law and facts are involved.

2.

ITA No. 397 of 2010 has been filed 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. 334/CHANDI/2009, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of sections 249, 250 of the Act the decision of CIT (A) on merits can be interpreted as a -2- “satisfaction for an admission of an appeal” filed beyond the period prescribed? ii) Whether Tribunal is right in law by not assigning any reasoning 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 or 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 additions on account of house hold expenses, bank deposits are based upon surmises and conjecture since very well explainable?”

3.

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

-3-

4.

Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.

5.

A photo copy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 15, 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 →