C I T vs. SOHAN LAL JINDAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/513/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080513200817 November 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 for consideration. This conclusion was based on the concession made by the learned counsel for the Revenue. The counsel did not dispute that this Court had already dismissed an appeal against an identical order of the Tribunal in a previous case, ITA No. 487 of 2007 (Commissioner of Income Tax-II Ludhiana vs. Tilak Raj), decided on 20.05.2008. Therefore, the High Court found no basis to entertain the present appeal as raising a substantial question of law. The appeal was dismissed on this ground, without delving into the merits of the ITAT's decision regarding the deletion of the addition.

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 appeal pertains to Assessment Year 1998-99 and challenges the ITAT's deletion of an addition of Rs. 3,46,000. The ITAT's order was passed in ITA No. 630/Chandi/2007 dated 18.09.2007. The High Court was considering whether to admit the appeal by framing substantial questions of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ITAT deleting the addition of Rs. 3,46,000 is perverse? (Question of law or mixed law and fact, concerning the ITAT's finding on the addition). Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions are recorded for the assessee in the provided judgment. Revenue: The Revenue contended that the ITAT's order deleting the addition was perverse. The Revenue sought to raise this as a substantial question of law. The Revenue's counsel did not dispute that an appeal against an identical order of the Tribunal had been dismissed by the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.513 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.513 of 2008 Date of decision 17.11.2008. The Commissioner of Income Tax-II Ludhiana

...... Appellant versus Sh.Sohan Lal Jindal ...... Respondent. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL. Present : Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J.(Oral). (1) This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the I.T.Act, 1961 for Asstt. Year 1998-99 against the order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench SMC, Chandigarh passed in ITA No.630/Chandi/2007 dated 18.09-2007 proposing to raise following substantial questions : “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case the order of the ITAT deleting the addition of Rs.3,46,000/-

ITA No.513 of 2008 2 is perverse?” Learned counsel for the Revenue does not dispute that appeal against identical order of the Tribunal has been dismissed by this Court being ITA No. 487 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax-II Ludhiana vs. Tilak Raj, decided on 20.5.2008. (3) In view of the above, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises for consideration. (4) The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE

( L.N. MITTAL )

JUDGE November 17, 2008 sv

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →