M/S MANSA COOP.SPINNING MILS LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/24/2001HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01042064200118 November 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee fairly stated that the issue was covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 200. Consequently, the High Court found no merit in the appeal. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the cited case, which presumably dealt with similar issues regarding the imposition of additional tax. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s The Mansa Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd., filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 1989-90. The core of the dispute revolves around the imposition of additional tax. The assessee challenged the sustainability of certain annexures and the imposition of additional tax amounting to Rs. 10,34,340/-, particularly when the return filed showed a loss and no tax was payable as per the assessment order. The assessee also questioned the imposition of additional tax based on retrospectively amended law and in light of a Supreme Court judgment.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal was asked to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether Annexures P2, P8, and P9 are legally sustainable. 2. Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal upholding the imposition of additional tax at Rs. 10,34,340/-, especially when there was a loss as per the return and assessment order, is legally sustainable. 3. Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal in upholding the imposition of additional tax on the basis of a retrospectively amended law is legally sustainable. 4. Whether the order sustaining the imposition of additional tax of Rs. 10,34,340/- on the basis of the return filed, order passed, and the law as on that date is legally sustainable. 5. Whether the confirmation of the imposition of additional tax is legally sustainable despite the mandate provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd., 243 ITR page 48. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the imposition of additional tax was not legally sustainable, particularly given the loss shown in the return and assessment order, the application of a retrospectively amended law, and a specific Supreme Court ruling. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions for the revenue are recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 18.11.2010 M/s The Mansa Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd. -----Appellant. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. M.R. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Savita Saxena, Standing Counsel for the respondents. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar in I.T.A. No.1312(ASR)/1992 for the assessment year 1989-90 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Annexures P2, P8 and P9 are legally sustainable? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Appellate Tribunal upholding the imposition of additional tax at Rs.10,34,340/- especially when there is a loss as per the return filed, also as per the order of assessment, no tax is payable as per assessment order and hence is legally sustainable? iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Appellate Tribunal in upholding the imposition of additional tax on the basis of the law amended latter on retrospectively is legally sustainable? iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order (Annexure P8) sustaining the imposition of additional tax of Rs.10,34,340/- on the basis of the return filed, order passed and the law as on that date is legally sustainable? v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the confirmation of the imposition of additional tax is legally sustainable inspite of the specific mandate provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Electro Graphites Ltd., 243 ITR page 48.”

Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that the issue is covered against the assessee by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR

200.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 18, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ashwani JUDGE 2

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →