C I T vs. M/S HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORP.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/557/2007HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01073266200728 April 2008Author: MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG,MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Court noted that the revenue's counsel fairly conceded that this Court had previously decided an identical question in favour of the assessee in two other appeals (ITAs No. 242 of 2006 and 367 of 2005) pertaining to assessment years 1989-90 and 1993-94. Therefore, the authoritative pronouncements in those earlier cases were applicable to the present appeal. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court has already ruled on an identical issue in favour of the assessee, subsequent appeals by the revenue on the same issue will be dismissed based on the precedent. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula (revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 24.2.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench 'A'. The ITAT's order was in ITA No. 176/CHANDI/2001 concerning assessment year 1993-94. The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision regarding the assessee's liability for interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, charged on the total income assessed. The revenue acknowledged that this High Court had previously decided an identical question in favour of the assessee in two other appeals (ITAs No. 242 of 2006 and 367 of 2005) for assessment years 1989-90 and 1993-94.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the assessee was not liable for paying interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, charged on the total income assessed? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the revenue's concession implies the assessee was held not liable for interest under Section 234B. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the assessee was liable for interest under Section 234B. However, the revenue's counsel fairly submitted that this Court had already decided an identical question in favour of the assessee in previous appeals, making those pronouncements applicable to the present case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No. 557 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 28.04.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula .... APPELLANT Versus M/s Haryana Warehousing, Bay No. 15-18, Sector 2, Panchkula ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the appellant-revenue.

* * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 24.2.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench `A' Chandigarh in ITA No. 176/CHANDI/2001 for the assessment year 1993-94, raising the following substantial question of law for consideration of this Court : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the assessee was not liable for paying interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 charged on the total income assessed?

Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue very fairly submits that in case of the assessee itself, this Court has decided an identical

ITA No. 557 of 2007 -2- question in favour of the assessee, by dismissing two appeals (ITAs No. 242 of 2006 and 367 of 2005), filed by the revenue, which were pertaining to the assessment years 1989-90 and 1993-94. Therefore, the authoritative pronouncements of this Court in ITAs No. 242 of 2006 and 367 of 2005 are applicable to this case. Accordingly, this appeal is also dismissed.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE April 28, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj 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 →