CIT-III, LUDHIANA vs. PARVEEN TAYAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/19/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093097201027 April 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there was no substantive question of law, or indeed any question of law, under Section 260-A of the Act for its determination. The Court noted that the Revenue had accepted the earlier ITAT order dated 13.05.2005, which had directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on the value of a truck against undisclosed income as per Section 158 of the Act. This earlier order had attained finality. Furthermore, the Court observed that no law could be cited to support the proposition that depreciation was not available even in respect of trucks taken on hire-purchase. Consequently, the principle of consistency was attracted, and the appeal was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana, filed a petition under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 24.06.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The ITAT's earlier order dated 13.05.2005 had directed the Assessing Officer to allow actual depreciation as per Section 158 of the Act against undisclosed income, specifically concerning the value of a truck. The Revenue had accepted this earlier order, which had attained finality. The present petition was filed against the ITAT's subsequent order disposing of ITSS No. 11/CHD/2009.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is a substantive question of law under Section 260-A of the Act for determination by the High Court, concerning the availability of depreciation on trucks taken on hire-purchase against undisclosed income. The Revenue contended that no law could be cited to argue against the availability of depreciation on trucks taken on hire-purchase. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue regarding the substantive question of law, other than the general statement that no law could be cited against the assessee's position. The assessee's arguments are not explicitly detailed, but the Tribunal's earlier order, which was accepted by the Revenue, formed the basis of the decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 158

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:27.04.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana ...Appellant Versus Sh.Parveen Tayal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Radhika Suri, Advocate, for the respondent.

1.

To be referred to the reporters or not?

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity `the Act') is directed against the order dated 24.6.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity `the Tribunal') while disposing of ITSS No. 11/CHD/2009. According to order dated 13.5.2005, the actual depreciation can be allowed as per the provisions of Section 158 of the Act against undisclosed income. On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning, the Tribunal in its earlier order has issued directions to the Assessing Officer for computing depreciation on account of value of truck and determine taxable income after allowing depreciation against undisclosed income. The aforesaid order has been accepted by the Revenue and has attained finality. Even on merit, no law could be cited that depreciation even in respect of trucks taken on hire-purchase was not available. We find there is no question of law much less a substantive question of law under Section 260 A of the Act for determination of this Court. The principle of consistency obviously would be attracted. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE 27.04.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk

JUDGE

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 →