CIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PB. ST. CO-OP FEDERATIION OF HOUSING

PDF · subscribers
ITA/688/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080703200812 August 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the order of the Tribunal was perverse and unsustainable in law and beyond its authority. The Tribunal had set aside the orders of the lower authorities without recording any findings on their correctness or appreciating the merits of the case. The revenue's contention that the Tribunal could only set aside orders after finding them erroneous was accepted. The assessee was unable to show any finding by the Tribunal that the orders of the Assessing Officer or CIT(A) were erroneous. Therefore, the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the revenue. The appeal was allowed, the ITAT's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh, appealed to the High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench-B. The ITAT had, by its order dated 30.5.2008 in ITA No. 700/Chandi/2007, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2003-04. The assessee, M/s Punjab State Cooperative Federation of Housing Building Societies Ltd., had filed an original return and subsequently a revised return. The lower authorities had treated the revised return as invalid under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was filed beyond the permissible period. The ITAT's decision to remand the matter without commenting on the merits of the lower authorities' orders was the subject of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in sending back the issue of claim of deduction back to the file of the Assessing Officer without appreciating merits of the case and also that no facts have been made out before the Hon'ble Tribunal as to how the return filed on 21.12.2005 (by way of written submission) was bonafide in terms of section 139(5) of the Act as the revised return could not be filed in this case after 31.3.2005? (Question of law and mixed law and fact, turning on Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions recorded by the High Court. Revenue: The Tribunal, in exercise of its appellate powers, could set aside the impugned orders only after recording a finding that such orders were in any way erroneous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 139(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 12.8.2009 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh ..........Appellant Versus M/s Punjab State Cooperative Federation of ..........Respondent Housing Building Societies Ltd., SCO 150-152, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)

1.

The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-B dated 30.5.2008 passed in ITA No. 700/Chandi/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in sending back the issue of claim of deduction back to the file of the Assessing Officer without appreciating merits of the case and also that no facts have been made out before the Hon'ble Tribunal as to how the return filed on 21.12.2005 (by way of written submission) was bonafide in terms of section 139(5) of the Act as the revised return could not be filed in this case after 31.3.2005?

2.

The assessee filed original return and thereafter a revised (2) return. The revised return was treated as being beyond one year from the end of the relevant assessment year and was thus invalid under Section 139 (5). This view was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, without commenting upon the validity of the orders of the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), set aside the said orders and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer.

3.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4.

Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the Tribunal in exercise of its appellate powers, could set aside the impugned orders only after recording a finding that such orders were in any way erroneous.

5.

Learned counsel for the assessee is unable to show any finding which may have been recorded by the Tribunal that the orders of the Assessing Officer or CIT (A) were erroneous in any manner, much less reasons for such a finding.

6.

We are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is perverse and unsustainable in law and beyond its authority. The appeal, thus, involves substantial question of law, as to whether the Tribunal could have set aside the orders of lower authorities without recording any findings or about their correctness. The same question, thus, has to be answered in favour of the revenue.

7.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. The parties may appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on December 14, 2009. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 12, 2009

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No (3)

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 →