M/S BANSAL POLUTRY AND FEED INDUSTRIES vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX LDH. AND ANR.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/440/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075162200605 February 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. The operative part of the judgment states that for the reasons stated in the order passed on the same day in ITA No. 439 of 2006, the present appeal is dismissed. The judgment does not elaborate on the specific reasoning for dismissing this appeal, nor does it detail the findings on each of the substantial questions of law raised. It is implied that the decision in ITA No. 439 of 2006 contained the reasoning that was applied to this case. No specific relief was granted to the appellant, and no issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appellant, M/s Bansal Poultry and Feed Industries, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The appeal challenges an order dated April 4, 2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B'. The assessment years in dispute are 1996-97 and 1997-98. The appeal was filed against the order of the Tribunal which had presumably upheld the disallowance of deductions and the levy of interest under Section 234B by the lower authorities. The High Court disposed of this appeal based on its decision in a related appeal, ITA No. 439 of 2006.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the disallowance of deduction by the authorities below, relying on an Apex Court judgment without appreciating the specific facts of the case, is legally sustainable. 2. Whether the authorities below failed to consider that the issue regarding interest under Section 234B of the Act had already been decided, and if this failure makes their action legally sustainable. 3. Whether the impugned orders (Annexure A-1 and A-3) are legally sustainable. The appellant contended that the disallowance of deductions was made without proper appreciation of the facts and that the issue of interest under Section 234B had already been decided. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
I.T.A. No.440 of 2006 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No.440 of 2006 Date of decision: 5.2.2007 M/S Bansal Polutry and Feed Industries, Sherpur Road, village Benra, Dhuri, District Sangrur ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Aman Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAJESH BINDAL, J. The appellant has approached this Court by filing the present appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 4.4.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA Nos. 233 & 234/Chandi/2003 in respect of the assessment years 1996-97 & 1997-98 by seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of authorities below to disallow the

deduction relying upon the Hon'ble Apex judgment without appreciating the true facts and circumstances of the present case is legally sustainable in the eyes of law?

2.

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of the authorities below not to consider

I.T.A.

No.440 of 2006

-2- *** that the issue regarding interest under section 234 B of the Act has already been decided by the authorities below, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law?

3.

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the impugned orders Annexure A-1 and A-3 are legally sustainable in the eyes of law?”

For the reasons stated in the order passed today in ITA No.439 of 2006, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge February 05 ,2007 (M.M.Kumar) Pka 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 →