PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA vs. RAJAN BATRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/22/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01026436202424 July 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it was of the firm view that parallel proceedings could not be allowed to continue. The Court also acknowledged that any order passed by the High Court would definitely influence the decision in the miscellaneous application/review filed by the Revenue before the ITAT. Consequently, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the appeals at this stage as premature. The department was granted liberty to pursue its remedies before the ITAT and was informed that they would be free to approach the High Court again if they remained aggrieved by any order passed by the ITAT. The applications for condonation of delay and exemption were allowed, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, identified as the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana, filed multiple appeals (ITA-22-2024, ITA-30-2024, ITA-34-2024, ITA-29-2024) against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Revenue also filed applications for condonation of delay and exemption. The appeals were filed after a delay of 56 days. The Revenue's counsel submitted that they had moved an application for recalling of an order before the ITAT and wanted to argue the present appeals. The High Court noted that parallel proceedings could not be allowed to continue and that any order passed by the High Court would influence the decision in the miscellaneous application/review filed by the Revenue before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue's appeals against the ITAT's order are maintainable at this stage, considering the pendency of a recall application before the ITAT? (Question of law) 2. Whether the High Court should entertain the appeals when parallel proceedings are ongoing before the ITAT? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee's side. The focus is on the Revenue's submissions and the Court's observations. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's counsel submitted that they had filed an application for recalling of an order before the ITAT and wished to argue the present appeals. They argued that parallel proceedings should not be allowed to continue and that any order from the High Court would influence the ITAT's decision on their recall/review application.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-22-2024 (O 112

IN TH 1.

Principal Com

Rajan Batra 2.

Principal Com

Rajan Batra 3.

Principal Com

Rajan Batra 4.

Principal Com

Rajan Batra CORAM: H

H Present: M

SANJEEV P

CM-5191-CII CII-2024

A respective app O&M) and connected cases Page 1 of 2 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR mmissioner of Income Tax, Ludhia Vs. mmissioner of Income Tax, Ludhia Vs. mmissioner of Income Tax, Ludhia Vs. mmissioner of Income Tax, Ludhia Vs. **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing for the appellant. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) I-2024; CM-5289-CII-2024; CM Applications filed for condonation peals are allowed, and accordingly AB AND HARYANA AT RH Date of Decision: 24.07.2024 ITA-22-2024 (O&M) ana . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent ITA-30-2024 (O&M) ana . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent ITA-34-2024 (O&M) ana . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent ITA-29-2024 (O&M) ana . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA JAY VASHISTH g Counsel ) M-5301-CII-2024 & CM-5283- n of delay of 56 days in filing of y the delay is condoned.

4 ) t t ) t t ) t t ) t t - f MOHIT GOYAL 2024.07.25 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-22-2024 (O CM-5192-CII CII-2024

E Main cases 1. Admitt ITAT. moved wants t 2. We are continu influen applica 3. Keepin at this s of any by the R 4. Appeal 5. All pen

July 24, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe O&M) and connected cases Page 2 of 2 I-2024; CM-5290-CII-2024; CM Exemption applications are allowe edly, the Revenue is in review However, learned counsel sub an application for recalling of th to argue the present appeal. e of firm view that parallel pro ue. Moreover, any order passed ce one way or the other, the ation/review filed by the Revenue ng in view thereto, we dispose o stage, and the department shall b order which the ITAT may pass Revenue. ls stand disposed of accordingly. nding applications also stand dispo

(SANJ er speaking/reasoned?

Y er reportable?

Y M-5302-CII-2024 & CM-5284- ed as prayed for. against the order passed by the bmits that although they have he order before the ITAT, he also oceedings cannot be allowed to by this Court would definitely decision in the miscellaneous e before the ITAT. of these appeals to be premature be free, if they are still aggrieved s in the MA applications moved . osed of. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

- e e o o y s e d d MOHIT GOYAL 2024.07.25 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →