THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOHAN BOTTLING CO PL TD

ITA/141/2004HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01051264200421 April 20162 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The specific finding of the ITAT on the issue of security deposits being a trading receipt is not detailed in this High Court judgment, as the appeal was not pressed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (the revenue) against an order dated 10.12.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The ITAT's order pertained to ITA Nos. 1313/Chandi/98 for the assessment year 1991-92. The dispute involved whether the excess of 'security deposits' over 'refunds' received by the assessee, M/s Mohan Bottling Co. (P) Ltd., on the sale of bottles constituted a trading receipt. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the excess of 'security deposits' over 'refunds' received by the assessee on sale of bottles is not a trading receipt? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: No arguments are recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of CBDT circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, he does not wish to press the present appeal as the tax effect involved is less than ₹20 lacs. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 141 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 141 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.04.2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala .......Appellant Versus M/s Mohan Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order dated 10.12.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (A), Chandigarh in ITA Nos. 1313/Chandi/98, for the assessment year 1991-92, raising the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that excess of 'security deposits' over 'refunds' received by the assessee on sale of bottles is not a trading receipt?” REEMA SAINI 2016.04.26 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

ITA No. 141 of 2004 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, as the tax effect involved is less than ` 20 lacs. However, he prays that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It is however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)

JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) 21.04.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.04.26 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →