CIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S PUNEET UDYOG FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/170/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093076201020 May 2010Bench: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A for assessment year 2004-05 should meet the same fate as the Revenue's earlier appeal (ITA No. 337 of 2009) for assessment year 2003-04, which was dismissed by the same Bench on 16.02.2010. The reasoning was based on the observation that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had noted similar facts in its order for the assessment year 2004-05, even though the figures might be different. The principle applied is that consistent factual patterns leading to a specific outcome in a prior appeal, especially when upheld by the Tribunal, warrant a similar decision in subsequent appeals with analogous facts. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad, has filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 17.04.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'F', New Delhi. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2004-05 and concerns the assessee, M/s Puneet Udyog. The High Court noted that the Revenue had previously filed an appeal (ITA No. 337 of 2009) for the assessment year 2003-04 concerning the same assessee. That appeal was dismissed by the same Bench on 16.02.2010, where the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had deleted an addition of Rs. 34,60,650/-, and this deletion was upheld by the ITAT. The High Court observed that the ITAT's order in the present case for AY 2004-05 involved similar facts, albeit with different figures.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A against the order of the ITAT for assessment year 2004-05 should be dismissed on the grounds of similarity with a previously dismissed appeal for assessment year 2003-04 concerning the same assessee. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The decision relies on the similarity of facts and the outcome of a previous appeal. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued various questions of law. However, the High Court focused on the similarity of facts with the previous appeal (ITA No. 337 of 2009 for AY 2003-04) which was dismissed. The Revenue's counsel was questioned on this similarity. The Revenue relied on the fact that the ITAT's order in the present case had similar facts to the prior case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 170 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA No. 170 of 2010 Date of Decision 20.05.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad. -----Petitioner Versus M/s Puneet Udyog, Plot No. 37E Sector-6, Faridabad ---Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. Kumar, J. The instant appeal filed under Section 260-A by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 17.04.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F' New Delhi (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 117/D/2008 for the assessment year 2004-05. The Revenue has claimed various questions of law. However, at the outset, we ask the learned counsel for the Revenue

ITA No. 170 of 2010 -2- that in respect of the same assessee-respondent, the Revenue had earlier filed appeal in ITA No. 337 of 2009 for assessment year 2003- 04 and the same was dismissed by this Bench on 16.02.2010. In that case, CIT-A has deleted the addition of Rs. 34,60,650/- and order was upheld by the Tribunal. Similar facts although with different figures have been noticed by the Tribunal in its order. On account of the similarity in the order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that this appeal also has to meet the same fate as was that of ITA No. 337 of 2009 concerning assessment year 2003- 04. Accordingly, the appeal fails and same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE May 20, 2010 Atul

ITA No. 170 of 2010 -3-

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 →