C.I.T PATIALA vs. M/S METAL PRODUCTS OF INDIA, CHD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the substantial question of law on its merits. The Court noted that the matter was remanded by the ITAT. The revenue's counsel was granted time to ascertain the status of proceedings after the remand. Despite multiple adjournments, the revenue's counsel could not provide the status of the proceedings because the case record was not traceable. An Income-tax Officer's letter confirmed this. Consequently, the High Court returned the reference unanswered. The operative direction was to return the reference. No specific issue was left undecided, as the entire reference was returned without adjudication on the merits of the question of law.
What were the facts?
This case involves a reference from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The reference pertains to an order passed by the ITAT. The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, is the applicant, and M/s. Metal Products of India, Chandigarh, is the respondent-assessee. The High Court had previously granted time to the revenue's counsel to ascertain the status of proceedings after a remand order by the ITAT. Despite several adjournments for this purpose, the revenue's counsel was unable to provide the status as the case record was not traceable. An Income-tax Officer's letter dated January 29, 2008, confirming the untraceable record, was placed on record.
What were the issues?
The substantial question of law referred to the High Court by the ITAT is: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in recalling its original order and on a review setting aside the assessment to be made afresh from the stage of filing of the return?" The revenue's contention, implied by its role as applicant in seeking clarification on the ITAT's order, is that the ITAT may not have been justified in recalling its original order and setting aside the assessment for fresh adjudication. The assessee's position is not explicitly recorded in terms of arguments presented before the High Court in this reference, but their interest lies in upholding the ITAT's decision to recall its order and direct a fresh assessment. No specific authorities, circulars, or precedents were mentioned by either side in the High Court proceedings as recorded in this judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.R. No. 22 of 1993 DATE OF DECISION : 30.01.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala .... APPLICANT-REVENUE Versus M/s. Metal Products of India, Chandigarh ..... RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the revenue. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the assessee.
* * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, has referred the following substantial question of law, to this Court for determination : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in recalling its original order and on a review setting aside the assessment to be made afresh from the stage of filing of the return?”
ITR No. 22 of 1993 -2- Vide the impugned order, the matter was remanded. On March 1, 2007, learned counsel for the revenue was granted time to find out the status of proceedings after remand in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for several times for the same purpose. Today, learned counsel for the revenue states that record of the case is not traceable, therefore, he is unable to inform the status of proceedings after the remand. In this regard, he has produced copy of a letter dated 29.1.2008, written by Income-tax Officer, Ward 2 (1) Chandigarh, which is taken on record. In view of the aforesaid fact, the instant reference is returned un-answered. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE January 30, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
