M/S SUPER FOOTWEAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/79/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093760201018 January 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for determination. The Tribunal's decision to not grant the benefit of lost record to the assessee was upheld. The Tribunal had relied on its earlier order dated 26.05.2005 in ITA No.6525/Del/96, which rejected a similar plea by an assessee. The reasoning was that a presumption of veracity attaches to official records, which tilts the balance against the assessee. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was considered misconceived and dismissed. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. The High Court did not leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Super Footwear, G.T. Road, Karnal, filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order dated 15.06.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi. The appeal pertained to assessment year 1992-93. The core issue before the ITAT was whether the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal, was barred by limitation. The assessee claimed to have signed an order sheet on 04.04.1995 and alleged that the Revenue had misplaced the record, creating a false story of it being lost in a flood at Rohtak to avoid consequences.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal, for assessment year 1992-93 was barred by limitation, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the assessee's claim of signing an order sheet on 04.04.1995 and the alleged misplacement of records by the Revenue. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the order was barred by limitation. The assessee alleged that the Revenue had misplaced the record and fabricated a story of it being lost in a flood at Rohtak to conceal their actions. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the Revenue before the High Court. However, the ITAT's decision indicates that the Revenue's position, supported by the presumption of veracity of official records, was accepted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260(A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Income Tax Appeal No.79 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 18-01-2010 M/s Super Footwear, G.T. Road, Karnal

....Appellant VERSUS Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal

...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the appellant.

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260(A) of the Act (for brevity “the Act”) is directed against order dated 15.06.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity “the Tribunal”) in respect of assessment year 1992-93 in ITA No.2687/Del./2008. Before the Tribunal the ground raised was that the order of Asstt. Commissioner Income Tax, Karnal was barred by limitation as per the provisions of the Act. The assessee had claimed to have signed order sheet dated 4.4.1995. The assessee had alleged that the Revenue misplaced the record to save its skin and created a false story of misplacing the same in flood at Rohtak.

-2- The Tribunal placing reliance on the order dated 26.05.2005 rendered in ITA No.6525/Del/96 observed that such a plea raised earlier by the assessee was rejected on the ground that the presumption to the veracity of official record would attach which would tilt the balance against the assessee. Accordingly, the benefit of lost record has not been granted to the assessee – appellant because the issue had already been settled by the Tribunal in the order dated 26.05.2005 rendered in ITA No.6525/Del/96 and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find that any question of law much less a substantial question of law would arise for determination by this court. The matter stands settled vide order dated 26.05.2005 and the benefit of lost record has rightly not been extended to the assessee – appellant. The appeal is wholly misconceived and does not warrant admission. The same is accordingly dismissed. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 18-01-2010 manju

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 →