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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/449/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119319201811 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 decisions of its own Division Benches. Specifically, it referred to its previous judgments in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. M/s Motorola India Ltd. and in ITA No.130 of 2018 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s ABC Papers Limited), decided on 07.02.2019, which dealt with identical issues. Consequently, the High Court found that it did not have the competent jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appeal was therefore 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), Delhi Bench “D”, New Delhi, dated 01.09.2017, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-2012. The appeal was filed against M/s Kuantum Papers Ltd. (the assessee). There was a delay of 75 days in re-filing the appeal, which was condoned by the High Court. The Revenue argued that the High Court had 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. However, the High Court noted that it was bound by its own previous decisions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether this High Court has the jurisdiction to hear the appeal in view of Section 127(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as interpreted by the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. AAR BEE Industries. The Revenue contended that the jurisdiction lies with this High Court based on the interpretation of Section 127(4) of the Act by the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. AAR BEE Industries. The Revenue did not present any other arguments on the merits of the case before this Court. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee on the jurisdiction issue.

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 Papers 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-25655-CII-2018

For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed. Delay of 75 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.1344/Del/2017 dated 01.09.2017 for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. 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 →