CIT-I CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORP. CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/459/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093394201020 September 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded that the matter was covered against the Revenue by previous orders of the High Court dated 13.9.2010 and 14.9.2010 in similar appeals (ITA Nos. 435 and 436 of 2010) involving the same assessee. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the substantial questions of law raised, the appeals were disposed of in line with the precedent. The specific findings of the ITAT on the issues raised by the Revenue were not discussed or adjudicated upon by the High Court in this order.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, filed these appeals (ITA Nos. 459 and 460 of 2010) under Section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, dated 23.9.2009. The appeals pertain to assessment year 2006-07 and involve M/s Punjab State Warehousing Corp. as the assessee. The ITAT had granted relief to the assessee. The appeals were consolidated for decision due to common questions of law. The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision on specific grounds.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in allowing relief to the assessee based on material not produced before the Assessing Officer (AO)? (Question of law) 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in allowing relief to the assessee without appreciating that the amount was due from employees still in service with the assessee? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred by allowing relief based on evidence not presented to the AO and by not considering that the disputed amount was owed by employees still in the assessee's service. The Revenue relied on the substantial questions of law framed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 261

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.9.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I ....Appellant. Versus M/s Punjab State Warehousing Corp. ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant.

1.

This order will dispose of ITA Nos. 459 and 460 of 2010 as common questions are involved.

2.

ITA No. 459 of 2010 is an appeal by the revenue under Section 206A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), Chandigarh passed in ITA No. 427/Chandi/2008 dated 23.9.2009, for the assessment year 2006-07, proposing following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in allowing relief to the assessee on the basis of the material which was not produced before the A.O?

-2-

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in allowing relief to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the amount was due from the employees who were still in service with the assessee?”

2.

Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by orders of this Court dated 13.9.2010 and 14.9.2010 in ITA Nos. 435 and 436 of 2010 (The Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. M/s Punjab State Warehousing Corp).

3.

Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 20, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 460 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.9.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I ....Appellant. Versus M/s Punjab State Warehousing Corp. ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant.

For orders, see ITA No. 459 of 2010 (The Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. M/s Punjab State Warehousing Corp). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 20, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE

More judgments on Section 261

All 38 judgments and leading authorities on Section 261 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →