COMMR. OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL LDH. vs. HARMANPREET SINGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/554/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075289200614 August 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law raised in the appeal was squarely covered by its earlier judgment dated 6.8.2007 in the case of Rajiv Bhatara (supra). Consequently, the question was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reasoning for this decision is based on the precedent established in the Rajiv Bhatara case, which addressed a similar issue concerning the levy of surcharge on undisclosed income when the search occurred before the effective date of an amendment to Section 113 of the Income-tax Act. The operative direction was to uphold the ITAT's order, which had cancelled the surcharge.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 5.4.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. The ITAT's order pertained to the block assessment period from 1.4.1990 to 6.4.2000. The appeal was filed against the assessee, Harmanpreet Singh. The core of the dispute revolved around the cancellation of the levy of surcharge on undisclosed income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the levy of surcharge on the tax worked out on the undisclosed income for the reason that search took place prior to 01.06.2002, whereas the amendment in the proviso to section 113 had been made effective from 01.06.2002? (Question of law). Assessee's contention: The assessee relied on a previous judgment of the same Bench in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I v. Rajiv Bhatara (I.T.A. No. 587 of 2006, decided on 6.8.2007), arguing that the issue in the present appeal was squarely covered by that decision in favour of the assessee. Revenue's contention: The Revenue's counsel was unable to dispute the submission made by the assessee's counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 113

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 554 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: 14.8.2007 Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana …Appellant Versus Harmanpreet Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant-revenue. Mr. Ravish Sood, Advocate, for the respondent-assessee.

JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. The revenue has approached this Court by filing instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), challenging order dated 5.4.2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in I.T. (SS) A. No. 3(ASR)/2005, for the block assessment period 1.4.1990 to 6.4.2000. The revenue has claimed that the following question of law would arise for our determination:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the levy of surcharge on the tax worked out on the undisclosed income for the reason that search took place prior to 01.06.202, whereas the amendment in the I.T.A. No. 554 of 2006 proviso to section 113 had been made effective from 01.06.2002?” Notice of motion was issued. Mr. Ravish Sood, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee. He has placed firm reliance on an earlier judgment of this Bench passed in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I v. Rajiv Bhatara (I.T.A. No. 587 of 2006, decided on 6.8.2007) and has submitted that the question raised in the instant appeal is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment against the revenue. Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant- revenue has not been able to successfully dispute the aforementioned submission made by Mr. Ravish Sood.

In view of the above we find that the question raised in the instant appeal is squarely covered by our judgment dated 6.8.2007 rendered in the case of Rajiv Bhatara (supra). Accordingly, the question is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee in terms of the aforementioned order. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) August 14, 2007 JUDGE Pkapoor 2

More judgments on Section 113

All 50 judgments and leading authorities on Section 113 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →