CIT ROHTAK vs. TEK SINGH SAINI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/284/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093201201001 September 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was devoid of any substantial question of law and accordingly dismissed it. The Court reasoned that since the revisional order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act had already been held to be invalid by the Tribunal, the subsequent assessment order made pursuant to that revisional order was merely consequential. The learned counsel for the Revenue could not point out any error in the impugned order of the ITAT. Therefore, the ITAT's decision to set aside the assessment was upheld. No operative directions were issued as the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated March 2, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The assessment year in question is 2000-01. The ITAT's order set aside an assessment that was made pursuant to a revisional order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act. The Commissioner's Section 263 order had directed a fresh assessment. The Revenue's earlier appeal against the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Section 263 order was dismissed by the High Court on February 9, 2010.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was right in law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, when the appeal against the order of the Tribunal quashing the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 of the Commissioner of Income-tax is pending before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT was wrong in dismissing its appeal, especially when an appeal against the Tribunal's order quashing the Section 263 order was pending before the High Court. The Revenue sought to challenge the ITAT's decision to set aside the assessment made pursuant to the Section 263 order.

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 Date of Decision: 1.9.2010 Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak ....Appellant. Versus Tek Singh Saini ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1.

Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 2.3.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “SMC” New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 3601(Del)/ 2008, for the assessment year 2000-01, proposing following substantial question of law:- “Whether ITAT is right in law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, when the appeal against the order of the Tribunal quashing the order passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 of the Commissioner of Income is pending before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court?”

2.

Against the order of assessment, the Commissioner -2- passed an order under Section 263 and directed fresh assessment to be made. Accordingly, fresh assessment was made. The said revisional order under Section 263 was set aside by the Tribunal against which appeal of the revenue was dismissed by this Court on 9.2.2010 being ITA No. 202 of 2009 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak v. Sh. Tek Chand Saini). By impugned order Tribunal has set aside the assessment made.

3.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

4.

In view of the fact that order under Section 263 of the Act has been held to be invalid, the order passed by the Tribunal is merely consequential. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any error in the impugned order. No substantial question of law arises.

5.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 1, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →