C I T JAIPUR-II JAIPUR vs. M/S JAIPUR HOUSE PVT LTD

ITA/3/2013HC RajasthanRJHC02066558201320 August 2014Author: JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA,AJAY RASTOGI2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that both appeals have become infructuous. The reasoning provided is that the Assessing Authority has passed a final order on March 29, 2014, subsequent to the ITAT's orders remitting the matter back for fresh examination. The Court noted that if either party is aggrieved by this new order, they possess the statutory remedy of filing an appeal against it. Consequently, the appeals before the High Court are rendered unnecessary and have been dismissed on this basis. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original disputes before the ITAT.

What were the facts?

These are two appeals filed before the Rajasthan High Court against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated January 15, 2013, and August 31, 2012. The appeals pertain to assessment year 2008-09 and involve separate appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue. The ITAT had allowed the assessee's appeal on August 31, 2012, remitting the matter back to the Assessing Authority for a fresh examination. Subsequently, the Revenue's appeal for the same assessment year was disposed of on January 15, 2013, in light of the earlier order. The Assessing Authority passed a final order on March 29, 2014, after the remittance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed before the High Court have become infructuous in light of the subsequent events. (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Assessing Authority has finally passed an order on March 29, 2014, after the matter was remitted by the Tribunal. If either party is aggrieved by this fresh order, they have the remedy of filing an appeal. Therefore, the present appeals before the High Court have become infructuous.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

(1) In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.15/2014 D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.3/2013 Date : 20.08.2014 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Ranka Mr. Vikram Pagaria, ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, present in person. Instant appeals have been filed against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dt.15.01.2013 & 31.08.2012 for assessment year 2008-09 disposing of two separate appeals filed at the instance of the assessee and the Revenue. It can be noticed from order of the Tribunal that taking note of the contention advanced for consideration the assessee's appeal was allowed vide order dt.31.08.2012 and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Authority to examine the dispute again/ afresh in accordance with law and at a later point of time the appeal of the revenue came up for consideration for the same assessment year 2008-09 and in the light of the earlier order passed on 31.08.2012 this appeal also came to be decided/disposed of by subsequent order dt.15.01.2013 and since the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Authority it was open for the parties to address & ventilate their grievance and so also for the Assessing Authority to decide the dispute independently in accordance with law. The officer present in person submits that after the matter was remitted by the Tribunal to the Assessing Authority to examine afresh for the assessment year 2008-09, the Assessing Authority has finally passed the order on 29.03.2014 and either

(2) party if having grievance/aggrieved has remedy of filing appeal against the fresh order passed by the Assessing Authority. In light of the change in circumstances taken place and noticed by this Court, both the appeals have become infructuous and accordingly dismissed. (J.K. Ranka),J. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS Shekhawat/-PA/(S56&S1) Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed/Vijay Singh Shekhawat/PAJW

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →