COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, LUDHIANA. vs. M/S MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION

PDF · subscribers
ITA/652/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080664200809 December 2008Author: MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The reasoning was based on the fact that the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 28.02.2007, which had set aside the Commissioner's order under Section 263 and consequently the fresh assessment, had already been affirmed by the High Court itself in a previous appeal (ITA No. 395 of 2007) vide its order dated 13.12.2007. Therefore, the High Court found no basis to interfere with the ITAT's decision, as it was consistent with its own prior ruling. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax II, Ludhiana, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The ITAT had set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (C), Ludhiana, under Section 263 of the Act. This order of the Commissioner had, in turn, set aside an earlier assessment. Consequently, a fresh assessment made by the Assessing Officer was also set aside by the ITAT. The assessment year in dispute is 2001-02. The High Court notes that a previous order of the Tribunal dated 28.02.2007, which was affirmed by the High Court on 13.12.2007 in ITA No. 395 of 2007, was relevant to the present appeal.

What were the issues?

The substantial question of law for the High Court's decision was: Whether, on the facts and in law, the ITAT was legally justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in response to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (C), Ludhiana, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The Revenue's contention, as implied by the question of law, is that the ITAT was not justified in deleting the addition. The judgment does not explicitly record the contentions of either the assessee or the revenue beyond framing the question of law. However, the revenue's appeal suggests they disagreed with the ITAT's deletion of the addition.

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: 9.12.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax II, Ludhiana -----Appellant Vs. M/s Munjal Sales Corporation, Ludhiana --Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr.Standing Counsel for the revenue. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.

1.

The revenue has preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’, Chandigarh passed in ITA No.557/Chandi/2007 dated 22.11.2007, in respect of assessment year 2001-02, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether both on the facts and in law, the ITAT was legally justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in response to order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (C ), Ludhiana under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”

2.

The Commissioner set aside assessment, exercising its powers under section 263 of the Act. The said order of the Commissioner was set aside by the Tribunal on 28.2.2007. As a consequence of the above, fresh assessment made by the Assessing Officer has been set aside.

3.

It is not disputed that the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 28.2.2007 was affirmed by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2007 in ITA No.395 of 2007. 4. In view of above, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises.

5.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge December 9, 2008 (L.N.Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 2

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →