C.I.T.UDAIPUR vs. M/S JYOTI MINERALS PVT.LTD.UDAIPUR

ITA/24/2009HC RajasthanRJHC01027045200823 March 2009Author: SANGEET LODHA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in these appeals. This conclusion was reached because the Revenue's counsel conceded that the issue involved in the appeals was squarely covered by the High Court's own prior decision in the case of "Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Limited vs. Income Tax Officer" dated 30.5.07. Consequently, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order, which had relied on this precedent. The ratio decidendi is that if an issue is conclusively decided by a higher court (or a coordinate bench of the same court), and the party against whom the precedent operates concedes that the present case is on all fours with the precedent, then no substantial question of law arises for further consideration by the appellate court. Both appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, filed two appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 30.10.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeals against the order dated 3.2.1995 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The CIT(A) had allowed the assessee, M/s Jyoti Minerals Pvt. Ltd., a claim for investment allowance for Assessment Years 1989-90 and 1990-91. The ITAT's decision was based on a prior Bench decision of the High Court in the case of "Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Limited vs. Income Tax Officer". The Revenue conceded that the issue in the present appeals was squarely covered by this precedent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned ITAT erred in dismissing the Revenue's appeals and upholding the CIT(A)'s order allowing the assessee's claim for investment allowance for Assessment Years 1989-90 and 1990-91, thereby raising a substantial question of law under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. The ITAT's decision in favor of the assessee was based on a High Court precedent. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the ITAT's order was erroneous. However, before the High Court, the Revenue's counsel conceded that the issue involved in these appeals was squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of "Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Limited vs. Income Tax Officer" dated 30.5.07.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 1.Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur Vs. M/s Jyoti Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.24/2009) 2.Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur Vs. M/s Jyoti Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3901/08(DR(J) Date of Order :: 23.3.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the appellant.

These two appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act of 1961') are directed against the order dated 30.10.07 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (in short 'the learned ITAT') in ITA NO.860/JP/1995 and ITA No. 861/JP/1995 in respect of the Assessment Years 1989-90 and 1990-91, whereby the appeals preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 3.2.95 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (in short “CIT(A)”) allowing the claim of the assessee for investment allowance, have been dismissed.

The appeals preferred by the Revenue as aforesaid have been dismissed by the learned ITAT relying upon a Bench decision of this Court in the matter of “Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Limited vs. Income Tax Officer” dated 30.5. 07. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant before us that the issue involve in these appeals stands squarely covered by 2 the decision of this court in Arihant Tiles & Marbles's case (supra).

In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court in this appeal.

Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed in light of the decision of this court rendered in Arihant Tiles & Marbles's case (supra). (SANGEET LODHA),J. (A.M.KAPADIA),J. Aditya/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →