CIT, PATIALAL vs. M/S SATNAM OIL MILLS, LTD.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A.No.373 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 30, 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala .......Appellant Versus M/s Satnam Oil Mills Ltd. .......Respondent and I.T.A No.374 of 2009

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala .......Appellant Versus M/s L.D.Solvex Pvt. Ltd. .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms.Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the respondent. Notes: 1) To be referred to the reporters or not? 2) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

M. M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. ITA Nos.373 and 374 of 1009 as both of them arise out of a common order. These appeals are preferred against the common order dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B' (hereinafter referred as “the Tribunal”) in the corss-appeals ITA Nos.357 and 359/Chd/2008 in respect of Assessment year 2004-05. The Revenue has claimed that following substantial question of law arises for adjudication by this Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”): “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in setting aside the order u/s 263 dated 17.3.2008 of the Commissioner of Income Tax by holding that the assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer had failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspectives.” At the outset, Mr.Pankaj Jain, learned counsel for the assessee- respondent in both the appeals has prayed that the order of the Tribunal may be set aside because the Commissioner, Income Tax while exercising the juri iction under Section 263 of the Act, had earlier set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and had remanded back the matter to the Assessing Officer. In that regard, reference has been made to the orders dated 10.3.2008 and 17.3.2008 of the Commissioner, Income Tax. Mr.Jain has further stated that on the basis of the aforesaid order, the Assessing Officer has already revised his earlier order as per the directions issued by the Commissioner. Even, an appeal by both the appellants has been preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was dismissed having been rendered infructuous. It is in that back ground, it has been prayed that the order of the Tribunal may be set aside with a direction to move appropriate application for revival of the appeal. Ms.Dhugga, learned counsel for the appellant states that she has no objection to the aforesaid course being adopted as submitted by the assessee-respondent. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal dated 31.12.2008 passed in both the appeals is set aside and liberty is granted to the assessee-respondents to move an appropriate application before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals).

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. A photo copy of the order be placed on the file of connected case. ( M. M. KUMAR )

JUDGE

( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) April 30, 2010

JUDGE SRM