PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S KUANTUM PAPER LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/396/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119261201811 July 2019Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that it would be bound by the decisions of its own Division Benches. Specifically, it referred to its prior decision in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. M/s Motorola India Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 156 and its own recent judgment in ITA No.130 of 2018 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s ABC Papers Limited) decided on 07.02.2019. Based on these precedents, the Court concluded that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was returned in original for presentation in the competent court of jurisdiction. The Court did not decide the merits of the case or the issues raised before the ITAT. The delay condonation application and any other pending applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being disposed of.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh (the Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi, dated 01.09.2017, for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The appeal was filed against M/s Kuantum Paper Ltd. (the Assessee). The Revenue sought condonation of a delay of 36 days in re-filing the appeal, which was allowed. The High Court noted that it had already disposed of a matter involving identical issues in ITA No.130 of 2018 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s ABC Papers Limited) decided on 07.02.2019. The Revenue argued that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana lacked jurisdiction based on Section 127(4) of the Act, as interpreted by the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. AAR BEE Industries.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has the jurisdiction to hear the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of Section 127(4) of the Act and the Delhi High Court's interpretation in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. AAR BEE Industries. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Assessee regarding the jurisdiction. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana would have jurisdiction based on Section 127(4) of the Act as interpreted by the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. AAR BEE Industries, Income Tax Reports, Vol. 357 (542).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 127(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 11.07.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh ...... Appellant versus M/s Kuantum Paper Ltd., SCO 18-19, First Floor Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL *** Present : Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate and Mr. Ajiteshwar Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

*** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) CM-24473-CII-2018

For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed. Delay of 36 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Main case This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “D”, New Delhi in ITA No.1340/Del/2017 dated 01.09.2017 for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. This Court in ITA No.130 of 2018 passed in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s ABC Papers Limited, decided on 07.02.2019 has already disposed of the matter POOJA SHARMA 2019.07.18 16:41 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. M/s Motorola India Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 156 and in ITA No.130 of 2018 decided on 07.02.2019 titled as Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s ABC Papers Limited and consequently return the same in original for presentation in the competent Court of jurisdiction. Appeal stands disposed of. Since the main case has been disposed of, the pending C.M. Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE July 11, 2019 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2019.07.18 16:41 I am the author of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →