COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA vs. M/S STATE BANK OF PATIALA THE MALL PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/29/2014HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109430201402 September 2014Bench: MR. JUSTICE DR. RAVI RANJAN,MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court ordered the withdrawal of the present appeal. This decision was based on a communication from the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala, dated 29.08.2014. The communication stated that the quantum addition in respect of which interest under Section 234B was charged had already been deleted and the matter of quantum addition had attained finality. Consequently, no interest under Section 234B was chargeable. Since the issue of charging interest under Section 234B was consequential to the quantum addition, the revenue requested to withdraw the appeal concerning this issue. The Court noted that substantial questions of law did arise in the case, but in view of the revenue's request to withdraw, the appeal was disposed of accordingly. No specific finding was given on the substantial questions of law as the appeal was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala (revenue-appellant) filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appeal challenged an order dated 27.06.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench (B), in M.A.No.5/Chd/2013, which arose from ITA Nos.535/Chd/2005. The assessment year in question was 1994-95. The revenue's appeal concerned the ITAT's dismissal of Miscellaneous Applications (M.As.) filed by the revenue. The ITAT had previously allowed the revenue liberty to approach it after receiving permission from the Committee of Disputes. The revenue sought to withdraw the present appeal based on a communication from the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in dismissing the Revenue's Miscellaneous Applications by invoking Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and holding that a recall could only be done within four years, despite the ITAT having previously allowed the Revenue liberty to approach the Tribunal after receiving requisite permission from the Committee of Disputes? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in dismissing the Revenue's Miscellaneous Applications by ignoring the fact that there was no longer a need for permission from the Committee of Disputes, based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Electronic Corporation of India v. UOI 332 ITR 58(SC)? Contentions of the Revenue: The revenue argued that the ITAT was not justified in dismissing its Miscellaneous Applications based on a four-year limitation under Section 254(2) when prior orders had granted liberty to approach after obtaining permission from the Committee of Disputes. The revenue also contended that the ITAT should have considered the Supreme Court's decision in Electronic Corporation of India v. UOI, which might have removed the need for such permission. Contentions of the Assessee: No specific contentions for the assessee were recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 254(2),Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.29 of 2014 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA No.29 of 2014 (O&M)

Date of Decision:02.09.2014 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala ...Appellant Versus M/s State Bank of Patiala ...Respondent The Mall, Patiala CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH Present: Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rajni Paul, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) C.M. No.12887-CII of 2014 Application is allowed, as prayed for. C.M. No.12888-CII of 2014 Annexures R-1 to R-5 filed along with the application are taken on record. Civil miscellaneous application stands disposed of. C.M. No.12889-CII of 2014 & I.T.A.No.29 of 2014 1. The revenue-appellant approached this Court under Section 260-A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') challenging the order dated 27.06.2013 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), Chandigarh (for brevity, 'ITAT') passed in M.A.No.5/Chd/2013 in ITA Nos.535/Chd/2005 in the case of M/s State AARTI SHARMA 2014.09.04 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA No.29 of 2014 - 2- Bank of Patiala, the Mall, Patiala for the assessment year 1994-95. The revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law:- “(i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in dismissing the Revenue's M.As. now by involving the section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and by holding that recall could be done only within four years, even when it, vide its orders dated 22.12.2006 & 24.9.2008, had allowed liberty to the Revenue to approach the Tribunal after receipt of the requisite permission from the Committee of Disputes? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in dismissing the Revenue's M.As. ignoring the fact that now there is no need for the permission from the Committee of Disputes on the basis of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Electronic Corporation of India v. UOI 332 ITR 58(SC)?” 2. Learned counsel for the revenue has produced copy of the communication No.CIT/PTA/Judl/2014-15/2240 dated 29.08.2014, which is taken on record. It reads as under:- “In this connection, it is stated that during the course of the preparation of reply to be filed in response to the above mentioned C.M. filed by the assessee, it has come to light that the quantum addition in respect of which interest u/s 234B was charged has already been deleted and the matter of quantum addition has attained finality. After the deletion of quantum addition, no interest u/s 234B is chargeable in the case of assessee for the year under considering. The issue of charging of interest u/s 234B being consequential to the quantum addition, the same is not required to be followed up even though substantial questions of law, as formed in the appeal, do arise in this case. As such, you are requested to please withdraw the appeal regarding the issue of charging of interest u/s 234B.” AARTI SHARMA 2014.09.04 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA No.29 of 2014 - 3- 3. In view thereof, learned counsel for the revenue prays for withdrawal of the present appeal. 4. Ordered accordingly.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

(FATEH DEEP SINGH) 02.09.2014 JUDGE aarti AARTI SHARMA 2014.09.04 16:22 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 →