COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CHD. vs. MISHINORI MATSYBAYSHIM

PDF · subscribers

ITA/453/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01075177200612 January 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Court noted that the ITAT's order under challenge was common for five different assessees. Crucially, the revenue's counsel conceded that this Court had already upheld the same ITAT order in a prior appeal, I.T.A. No. 458 of 2006 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II v. Mr. Kunio Ikai), decided on November 23, 2006. In that previous decision, the High Court had held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. Therefore, following the precedent set in the Kunio Ikai case, the present appeal was dismissed. The High Court did not independently analyze the merits of the two questions of law presented in this appeal, relying entirely on its prior ruling.

What were the facts?

The revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II, 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. The ITAT's order, dated March 6, 2006, pertained to Income Tax Appeal No. 489/Chandi/2003 and concerned assessment year 1993-94. The appeal was filed in relation to five different assessees, including Mr. Mishinori Matsybayshim. The core dispute revolved around the eligibility of the assessee for benefits under Section 10(6)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning salary and perquisites received. The High Court noted that a similar order by the ITAT had already been upheld by it in a previous case.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide two substantial questions of law arising from the ITAT's order: 1. Whether, on the stated facts, the ITAT 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. 2. Whether, on the stated facts, the assessee would be considered a 'technician' for the purpose of Section 10(6)(viia) of the Act. The revenue contended that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit under Section 10(6)(viia) and questioned the assessee's status as a 'technician' for the purpose of the said section. The judgment does not record specific contentions or authorities relied upon by the assessee. The revenue's arguments were based on the stated facts of the case and the interpretation of Section 10(6)(viia).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 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. Mishinori Matsybayshim, New Delhi

.....Respondents 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.489/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?”

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 →