COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ESCORTS AUTO COMPONENTS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/9/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080938200828 March 2008Author: MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG,MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declined to entertain the appeal and dismissed it. The Court noted that the identical substantial question of law had already been decided by the same Court against the revenue in two previous appeals: ITA No.607 of 2007 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. M/s Septu India (P) Ltd.) decided on 6.2.2008, and ITA No.549 of 2007 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/s Escorts Auto Components Ltd.) decided on 4.3.2008. Since no substantial question of law survived for consideration in light of these prior decisions, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit. The specific reasoning of the ITAT or the Madras High Court case was not elaborated upon by the High Court, as it relied on its own previous judgments.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad (the revenue) against an order dated 23.2.2007 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi Bench 'C'. The ITAT's order pertained to assessment year 1998-99 and concerned the deletion of a disallowance made by the revenue on account of bad debts written off by the assessee, M/s Escorts Auto Components Ltd. The revenue's contention was that the assessee failed to furnish evidence of the debts becoming bad. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the revenue filing an appeal to the High Court under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in deleting the disallowance made on account of bad debts written off, though the assessee failed to furnish evidence of debts becoming bad, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of South India Surgical Co.Ltd v. CIT, 201 CTR 289? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The assessee failed to furnish evidence of debts becoming bad. The revenue relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in South India Surgical Co.Ltd v. CIT, 201 CTR 289.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.3.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-Faridabad ......Appellant Versus M/s Escorts Auto Components Ltd., (Formerly known as M/s Escorts Employees Ancillaries Ltd.), 20/4, Faridabad. ......Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J .

1.

The revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the order dated 23.2.2007 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench 'C' in ITA No.3429/Del/2005 for the assessment year 1998-99 raising the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in deleting the disallowance made on account of bad debts written off, though assessee failed to furnish evidences of debts becoming bad, considering the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of South India Surgical Co.Ltd v. CIT, 201 CTR 289?”

-2-

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that the aforesaid identical questions have already been decided by this Court against the revenue in ITA No.607 of 2007 titled as Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. M/s Septu India (P) Ltd., Begumpur, Khatola, Gurgaon decided on 6.2.2008 and ITA No.549 of 2007 titled as The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/s Escorts Auto Components Ltd., (Formerly known as Escorts Employees Ancillaries Ltd.) 20/6, Mathura Road, Faridabad decided on 4.3.2008. 3. In the light of the above fact, no substantial question of law survives for our consideration in this appeal and accordingly, we decline to entertain the present appeal. Hence, this appeal is without any merit and the same is dismissed.

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 28.3. 2008 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) ps

JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →