KESAR SINGH vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court decided to dispose of the appeals without going into their merits. The primary reason for this decision was the pendency of miscellaneous applications before the ITAT, on which arguments had been heard but no orders had been passed for approximately three months. The Court deemed it appropriate to address this procedural aspect first. Consequently, the High Court requested the ITAT to make an endeavor to decide the pending miscellaneous applications expeditiously. No finding was given on the substantive issues of the appeals themselves, as they were not adjudicated upon.
What were the facts?
These appeals were filed by the Assessees (Gurinderjit Singh and Kesar Singh) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh. The ITAT's order was in relation to Cross Objection Nos. 66 to 69/Chd./2017 for Assessment Years 1994-95 to 1997-98. The appeals challenged the ITAT's decision upholding the assessments. A procedural issue was raised by the learned counsel for the appellants: miscellaneous applications had been filed before the ITAT, arguments were heard on 07.08.2019, but no orders had been passed thereon despite the lapse of approximately three months.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should decide the appeals on merits, given that the ITAT has not yet passed orders on miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee, despite arguments being heard. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that since the ITAT had not decided the miscellaneous applications filed by them, and significant time had passed since the arguments were heard, the High Court should address this procedural delay. They implicitly sought a direction for the ITAT to decide these applications. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the procedural issue or the merits of the appeals. The focus of the High Court's decision was on the pending miscellaneous applications before the ITAT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-
Date of decision: 30.10.2019 1. ITA No. 330 of 2019 (O&M) Gurinderjit Singh .....Appellant
Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondents 2. ITA No. 315 of 2019 (O&M) Kesar Singh .....Appellant
Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondents 3. ITA No. 316 of 2019 (O&M) Kesar Singh .....Appellant
Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondents 4. ITA No. 317 of 2019 (O&M) Kesar Singh .....Appellant
Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondents 5. ITA No. 325 of 2019 (O&M) Gurinderjit Singh .....Appellant
Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondents 6. ITA No. 327 of 2019 (O&M) Gurinderjit Singh .....Appellant
Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondents TRIPTI SAINI 2019.11.08 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
ITA No. 330 of 2019 (O&M) & connected cases -2- 7. ITA No. 329 of 2019 (O&M) Kesar Singh .....Appellant
Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondents 8. ITA No. 345 of 2019 (O&M) Kesar Singh .....Appellant
Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondents 9. ITA No. 390 of 2019 (O&M) Gurinderjit Singh .....Appellant
Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present:- Mr. Salil Kapoor, Advocate, and Mr. Shivansh Pandya, Advocate, for the appellant(s). .... AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) C.M No. 15342-CII of 2019 in ITA No. 330 of 2019 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 47 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2019.11.08 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
ITA No. 330 of 2019 (O&M) & connected cases -3- C.M No. 14977-CII of 2019 in ITA No. 315 of 2019 C.M No. 14978-CII of 2019 in ITA No. 316 of 2019 C.M No. 16018-CII of 2019 in ITA No. 345 of 2019 For the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay of 89 days in filing the appeals is condoned. Applications stand disposed of. C.M No. 15004-CII of 2019 in ITA No. 317 of 2019 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. C.M No. 15136-CII of 2019 in ITA No. 325 of 2019 C.M No. 15138-CII of 2019 in ITA No. 327 of 2019 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 48 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. C.M No. 15337-CII of 2019 in ITA No. 329 of 2019 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 55 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. C.M No. 17848-CII of 2019 in ITA No. 390 of 2019 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 58 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Main Appeals This order shall dispose above-numbered appeals preferred by the the Assesses under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) against order dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure A-10) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench A, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the TRIPTI SAINI 2019.11.08 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
ITA No. 330 of 2019 (O&M) & connected cases -4- Tribunal”) in Cross Objection Nos.66 to 69/Chd./2017 for Assessment Year 19994-95 to 1997-98. Above-mentioned appeals have been filed against orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, upholding the assessment. Apart from the merits, learned counsel has raised the issue that against the impugned order assessee had filed miscellaneous applications and despite the fact that arguments were heard on 07.08.2019, no orders have been passed thereon as almost three months have been lapsed. In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of above- numbered appeals at this stage, without going into the merits and with a request to the Tribunal to make an endeavor to decide miscellaneous applications expeditiously. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 30, 2019
(ALKA SARIN) tripti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No TRIPTI SAINI 2019.11.08 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
