C I T vs. M/S GIANI RAM AND CO.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/375/2007HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01073073200716 July 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the revenue was without merit. The reasoning was that the CIT(A) had upheld the assessment order and had not interfered with any liability imposed by that order. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in observing that the revenue could not be treated as an aggrieved party. The Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The specific issue of whether the ITAT erred in not adjudicating upon the revenue's grounds was implicitly answered by the dismissal of the appeal, as the court found no substantial question of law to warrant further adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Giani Ram & Company, a liquor contractor, had its licence fee liability treated as income from undisclosed sources by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, however, allowed a deduction under Section 43B for the licence fee paid to the Excise Department. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the Assessing Officer's decision to treat the licence fee as income from undisclosed sources and also allowing the deduction under Section 43B. The revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), contending that the issue of admissibility of deduction was not before the CIT(A). The ITAT held that since the CIT(A) upheld the assessment order, the revenue could not be considered an aggrieved party. The revenue then filed an appeal before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has erred in law in holding that the appeal filed by the revenue is incompetent as the revenue cannot be treated as aggrieved from the order of the Ld. CIT (A)? (Question of law turning on the interpretation of 'aggrieved party' in the context of an appeal under the Income Tax Act). 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has erred in law in not adjudicating upon any of the specific grounds taken by the revenue before it? (Question of law turning on the procedural obligations of the ITAT). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that since the CIT(A) dealt with the issue of admissibility of the deduction, the revenue was aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 16.7.2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ..........Appellant Versus M/s Giani Ram & Company, Liquour Contractor, ..........Respondent Meham, District Rohtak CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 26.10.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench, 'SMC-II' New Delhi in ITA No. 2037/Del/2004 for the assessment year 1995-96, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has erred in law in holding that the appeal filed by the revenue is incompetent as the revenue cannot be treated as aggrieved from the order of the Ld. CIT (A)? (b) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has erred in law in not adjudicating upon any of the specific grounds taken by the revenue before it?

(2)

2.

The Assessee is a liquor licencee. The Assessing Officer treated liability towards licence fee payable by the assessee to be income from undisclosed sources.

3.

However, out of the said income, deduction was allowed under Section 43B of the Act on account of licence fee paid to the Excise Department. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and held that the Assessing Officer was justified in treating and declaring income of the assessee from undisclosed sources and also in allowing the deduction under Section 43B of the Act.

4.

The revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal submitting that the issue of admissibility of deduction was not before the CIT(A).

5.

The Tribunal held that CIT(A) having dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment, the revenue cannot be held to be aggrieved by the order of CIT(A).

6.

Learned counsel for the revenue submits that since the CIT(A) dealt with the issue of admissibility of the deduction, the revenue was aggrieved by the order of CIT(A).

7.

We do not find any merit in this appeal. The CIT(A) having upheld the order of assessment and not interfered with any liability under the order of assessment, the Tribunal was justified in observing that revenue cannot be treated to be aggrieved party.

8.

In view of above, no substantial question of law arises.

9.

The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 16, 2009

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No (3)

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →