COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CHD. vs. KAZUMI ISHIBASHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/454/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075178200612 January 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Court referred to its previous order in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II v. Mr. Kunio Ikai (I.T.A. No.458 of 2006), decided on November 23, 2006. In that case, the High Court had held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order concerning the same assessment year and similar issues. Therefore, for the same reasons stated in the Kunio Ikai case, the present appeal filed by the revenue was also dismissed. The specific findings of the ITAT on the entitlement to the benefit under Section 10(6)(viia) and the assessee's status as a 'technician' were not re-examined by the High Court, as it found no substantial question of law to be decided. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench-B, dated March 6, 2006. The appeal pertained to assessment year 1993-94 and involved five different assessees, including Mr. Kazumi Ishibashi. The core of the dispute revolved around the assessee's entitlement to the benefit claimed under Section 10(6)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning salary and perquisites. The High Court noted that the same ITAT order had been challenged by the revenue in another appeal (I.T.A. No.458 of 2006, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II v. Mr. Kunio Ikai), which was dismissed by the High Court on November 23, 2006, holding that no substantial question of law arose.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the stated facts, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit claimed under Section 10(6)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of salary, including perquisites received by him? 2. Whether, on the stated facts, the assessee would be considered as a 'technician' for the purpose of Section 10(6)(viia) of the Act? Revenue's contentions: The revenue challenged the ITAT's decision on both issues. The specific arguments of the revenue are not detailed in the judgment, but the questions posed indicate they disputed the assessee's entitlement to the Section 10(6)(viia) benefit and whether the assessee qualified as a 'technician' under the said provision. Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

10(6)(viia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

**** Date of Decision:12.01.2007 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II .....Petitioner Vs. Mr. Kazumi Ishibashi, New Delhi .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate for the revenue. **** Rajesh Bindal, J. The revenue has approached this Court by filing the present appeal raising the following substantial questions of law arising out of order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-B (for short, `the Tribunal') in I.T.A. No.493/Chandi/2003 dated 6.3.2006 in respect of assessment year 1993-94:- “1. Whether on the stated facts of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit claimed by him under section 10(6)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the salary, including perquisites received by him?”

2.

Whether, on the stated facts, the assessee would be considered as a `technician' for the purpose of section 10 (6)(viia) of the Act?” The order passed by the Tribunal was common for five different assessees. It could not be disputed by learned counsel for the revenue that the same order of the Tribunal has been upheld by this Court in I.T.A. No.458 of 2006 filed by the revenue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II v. Mr. Kunio Ikai vide order dated 23.11.2006, wherein it has been held that no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.

-2-

For the reasons stated in earlier order passed by this Court in Kunio Ikai's case (supra), the present appeal is dismissed. ( RAJESH BINDAL ) JUDGE January 12, 2007

( M.M.KUMAR ) renu JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →