COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I CHD vs. M/S JAGTU MAL KUNDAN LAL

PDF · subscribers

ITA/229/2012HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01099304201205 March 2014Author: MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that in view of the communications received by the Revenue's counsel, which indicated that the appeal had become infructuous, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court accepted the prayer made by the Revenue's counsel. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh (Revenue) against M/s Jagtu Mal Kundan Lal, Chandigarh (assessee). The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh was hearing the appeal. During the proceedings, the Revenue's counsel produced two communications dated 03.03.2014 and 04.03.2014 from the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh. These communications indicated that the appeal had become infructuous. The Revenue's counsel then prayed for the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has become infructuous, and consequently, should be dismissed as withdrawn? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through its counsel, submitted that based on communications received from the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh, the appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had become infructuous. Therefore, the Revenue prayed that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:05.03.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh .... Appellant versus M/s Jagtu Mal Kundan Lal, Jagat Theatre Complex, Sec 17, Chandigarh .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate for the respondent. ***** Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.(Oral) CM No.4247-CII of 2014 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.4248-CII of 2014 This is an application for placing on record DVO Report dated 21.03.2013 (Annexure A-4) and Assessment order dated 28.03.2013. The application is allowed and DVO Report dated 21.03.2013 (Annexure A-4) and Assessment Order dated 28.03.2013 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. CM stands disposed of. Main case

Learned counsel for Revenue has produced two separate communications dated 03.03.2014 and 04.03.2014 respectively received from the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Bura Sonia 2014.03.11 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh -2- Chandigarh. Copies of communications are taken on record.

In view of the aforesaid communications, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has become infructuous. In view of the communications received by the learned counsel, she prayed that the appeal filed by the Revenue before this Court be dismissed as withdrawn.

In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn as prayed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 05.03.2014 (ANITA CHAUDHRY) sonia JUDGE Bura Sonia 2014.03.11 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →