PUNJAB AGRO INDIA CORPORATION LIMITED vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(10 CHANDIGHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/251/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01035641201921 January 2020Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the assessee's counsel fairly conceded that the matter had been concluded against the assessee in view of the judgment passed in ITA No. 170 of 2017 dated 6.11.2017, titled M/s Punjab Agro Ind. Corp. Ltd. vs. D.C.I.T, Circle 4 (1), Chandigarh. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeal in terms of the decision in ITA No. 170-2017. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the earlier judgment, which the assessee acknowledged as binding. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Punjab Agro Ind. Corp. Ltd., filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2012-13. The revenue is D.C.I.T, Circle 4 (1) Chandigarh. The appeal was filed claiming specific questions of law. However, at the outset, the assessee's counsel conceded that the matter had been concluded against the assessee in light of a previous judgment in ITA No. 170 of 2017, also titled M/s Punjab Agro Ind. Corp. Ltd. vs. D.C.I.T, Circle 4 (1), Chandigarh, decided on 6.11.2017.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances, the lower authorities and the ITAT committed an illegality by passing the impugned orders? (Question of law/mixed law and fact) 2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances, the impugned orders are not liable to be set aside? (Question of law/mixed law and fact) 3. Whether, under the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal committed an illegality by not applying a previously referred judgment to the facts of the present case? (Question of law/mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the lower authorities and the ITAT had committed an illegality and that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside. The assessee also contended that the Tribunal failed to apply a relevant judgment. The assessee's counsel, however, fairly stated that the matter was concluded against the assessee by a prior judgment in ITA No. 170 of 2017. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 ITA-251-2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101-4 ITA-251-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.1.2020 M/s Punjab Agro Ind. Corp. Ltd. ...... Appellant Versus D.C.I.T, Circle 4 (1) Chandigarh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN *** Present : Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate for the appellant. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in ITA No. 1449/CHD/2016 for the assessment year 2012-13 received on 14.12.2018, claiming the following questions of law :- “i. Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Lower authorities and ITAT have not committed illegality by passing the impugned orders ? ii. Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the impugned order are not liable to be set aside ? iii. Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal has not committed an illegality by not applying the judgment as referred above to the facts of present case.” ANURADHA 2020.02.05 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2 ITA-251-2019 (O&M) 2. At the very outset learned counsel very fairly states that the matter has been concluded against the assessee in view of the judgment passed in ITA No. 170 of 2017 dated 6.11.2017 titled as M/s Punjab Agro Ind. Corp. Ltd. vs. D.C.I.T, Circle 4 (1), Chandigarh. 3. Consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed in terms of the decision of ITA No. 170-2017 4. Since the main case has been decided, the pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI)

JUDGE (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 21.1.2020 anuradha

Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No Whether reportable - Yes/No ANURADHA 2020.02.05 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

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 →