THE DHAPALI CO-OPERAATIVVE LAB&CON SOC vs. COMMISSIOSNER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/399/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075114200605 February 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. It arrived at this conclusion by referring to its prior decisions in similar cases. Specifically, the Court cited ITA No. 347 of 2006 (The Taj Co-operative Labour & Construction Society v. Commissioner of Income Tax) and ITA No. 348 of 2006 (The Nirmata Co-operative Labour & Construction Society v. Commissioner of Income Tax), both decided on 27.10.2006, which in turn followed an earlier order in ITA No. 20 of 2006 (The Bandi Cooperative Labour & Construction Society v. Commissioner of Income Tax) decided on 16.05.2006. In those preceding cases, appeals by similarly situated societies were dismissed. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in those prior judgments, the present appeal was also dismissed. The High Court did not provide a separate reasoning for each of the eleven issues raised by the assessee but rather dismissed the entire appeal on the basis of precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee, The Dhapali Co-operative Labour & Construction Society Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against a common order dated 16.11.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench. This order pertained to Income Tax Appeal No. 419 (ASR)/2005 and cross objection No. 31 (ASR)/2005, relating to the assessment year 2002-03. The appeal challenged the ITAT's decision concerning the assessment of net profits and gains and the application of a 6% rate. The High Court noted that identical issues were raised in other appeals by similarly situated cooperative labour and construction societies, which had been dismissed.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide several substantial questions of law raised by the assessee. These included: 1. Whether the assessment of net profits and gains at a 6% rate was ultra vires principles of natural justice and legally justified. 2. Whether, in cases with two possible interpretations, the one favouring the assessee should be adopted. 3. Whether instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act are binding on Income Tax Authorities. 4. If the answer to question (iii) is negative, whether Income Tax Authorities can go beyond recorded reasons during scrutiny and withhold reasons from the assessee. 5. Whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, especially given its consistent grant for over a decade. 6. Whether employing outside labour deprives a cooperative society of exemptions on the whole of its profits and gains and income from collective disposal of its members' labour. 7. Whether it is mandatory for income tax authorities to decide contentions advanced before them. 8. Whether the ITAT's failure to decide the cross objection along with the main appeal caused manifest injustice. 9. Whether the approach of the lower income tax authorities was perverse and based on assumptions and conjectures. 10. Whether provisions for deduction/exemptions should be interpreted liberally in favour of the assessee. 11. Whether discriminatory and unfair treatment was meted out to the assessee society. The assessee contended that the assessment was unjust and that benefits under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) should be granted. The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119,Section 80P(2)(a)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

**** Date of Decision:05.02.2007 The Dhapali Co-operative Labour & Construction Society Ltd., CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- None. **** Rajesh Bindal, J. The present appeal, is directed against a common order dated 16.11.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short, `the Tribunal') in I.T.A. No.419 (ASR)/2005 and in cross objection No.31 (ASR)/2005 dated 15.2.2006 arising out of ITA No.419(ASR)/2005 in respect of assessment year 2002-03. The assessee has sought to raise the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the impugned assessment of the net profits and gains of the assessee and the assessment at the rate of 6% is ultra vires of principle of natural justice and legal, justified and in order in the facts and circumstances of the case? (ii) Whether in the case of availability of two views, view in favour of the assessee is to be adopted? (iii) Whether the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act are binding upon the Income Tax Authorities?: (iv) If the answer to the question no.(iii) is in negative whether the Income Tax Authorities at the time of assessment can travel beyond reasons recorded at the time of scrutiny and the reasons can be withheld from the assessee?

-2- (v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant assessee is entitled to be granted the benefit under section 80(P)(2) (a) (vi) of the Income Tax Act and that too in view of the benefits granted for the last more than one decade? (vi) Whether on the employment of some outside labour the cooperative society is to be deprived of the exemptions of the whole of the amount of profits and gains and income of the collective disposal of the labour of its members? (vii) Whether it is mandatory upon the income tax authorities to decide the contentions/ submissions advanced before them? (viii) Whether it was incumbent upon the ITAT, Amritsar Bench to decide the cross objection no.31 (ASR)/2005 in ITA No.419(ASR)/2005 alongwith I.T.A. No.419/ (ASR)/2005 and the non decision thereof together has caused manifest injustice to the appellant assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision on the cross objection have been reduced to be mere illusory in the facts and circumstances of the case? (ix) Whether the whole approach of the ld. Income Tax Authorities below in deciding the case against the appellant assessee suffer from perversity and is based upon assumptions and presumptions and surmises and conjectures? (x) Whether the provisions for deduction/exemptions is to be interpreted liberally in favour of assessee? (xi) Whether discriminatory and unfair treatment is being met out to the appellant society?” We find that identical issues were raised by similarly situated labour and construction socieities in I.T.A. No.347 of 2006 – The Taj Co- operative Labour & Construction Society v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Bathinda and I.T.A. No.348 of 2006 – The Nirmata Co-operative Labour & Construction Society v.

-3- Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Bathinda decided on 27.10.2006 wherein following earlier order passed in I.T.A. No.20 of 2006 – The Bandi Cooperative Labour & Construction Society v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Bathinda, decided on 16.5.2006, the appeal was dismissed.

For the reasons recorded therein, we do not find any substantial question of law arises in the appeal, accordingly, the same is dismissed. ( RAJESH BINDAL ) JUDGE February 05, 2007 ( M.M.KUMAR ) renu JUDGE

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →