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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/397/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119262201811 July 2019Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it would be bound by the decision of a Division Bench of its own court. Specifically, it referred to its previous decision in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. M/s Motorola India Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 156, and its own judgment in ITA No.130 of 2018, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s ABC Papers Limited, decided on February 7, 2019. Based on these precedents, the High Court concluded that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was returned in original for presentation in the competent court of jurisdiction. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

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 an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi Bench-D, dated September 1, 2017, for Assessment Year 2012-2013. The appeal challenged the ITAT's decision concerning Kuantum Paper Ltd. (the Assessee). The High Court noted that it had already disposed of a matter involving identical issues in a previous case, ITA No.130 of 2018, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s ABC Papers Limited, decided on February 7, 2019. The Revenue argued that the High Court had 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, considering the provisions of Section 127(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the interpretation by the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. AAR BEE Industries? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana would have jurisdiction in view of 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 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-24475-CII-2018

For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed. Delay of 33 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, New Delhi Bench-D in ITA No.1345/Del/2017 dated 01.09.2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. 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 involving the identical issues. 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 →