COMMISSIONER OF IT vs. VINAY BANSAL

PDF · subscribers

ITA/395/2005HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01071876200503 July 2013Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA,MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appeals based on the agreement of the counsel for both parties. They agreed that the questions of law involved in these appeals had been decided in favour of the Revenue in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnal Versus Puneet Chugh (ITA No.498 of 2005, decided on 07.02.2011). Consequently, the High Court set aside the orders dated 29.10.2004 and 20.06.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'SMC-I' and Delhi Bench 'B' respectively, for the assessment year 1994-95. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree that the issues are covered by a previous binding precedent, the appeals should be decided in accordance with that precedent.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal, filed appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 1994-95. The appeals were ITA No.395 of 2005 and ITA No.71 of 2006. The ITAT's order under challenge in ITA No.395 of 2005 was dated 29.10.2004, passed by the Delhi Bench 'SMC-I'. The ITAT's order under challenge in ITA No.71 of 2006 was dated 20.06.2005, passed by the Delhi Bench 'B'. The parties agreed that the questions of law involved had been decided in favour of the Revenue in a previous case, ITA No.498 of 2005 titled Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnal Versus Puneet Chugh, decided on 07.02.2011.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in its order dated 29.10.2004 (and 20.06.2005) for assessment year 1994-95, which is a question of law arising from the facts. The Revenue contended that the questions of law framed in the present appeals have already been answered in its favour in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnal Versus Puneet Chugh (ITA No.498 of 2005, decided on 07.02.2011). The Respondent (assessee) agreed with this submission. No specific arguments were recorded for the Respondent other than their agreement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.395 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA No.395 of 2005

Decided on: 03.07.2013

Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal ..... Appellant

VERSUS Vikas Bansal

..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Present: Mr.Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.

******* RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of ITA No.395 of 2005 and ITA No.71 of 2006 as they involve adjudication of same questions of facts and law. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from ITA No.395 of 2005. The revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the correctness of order dated 29.10.2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'SMC-I', New Delhi, for the assessment year 1994-95. Counsel for the parties agree that the questions of law framed in the present appeals have been answered in favour of the revenue in ITA No.498 of 2005 titled as “Commissioner of Income- Tax, Karnal Versus Puneet Chugh”, decided on 07.02.2011, and,

ITA No.395 of 2005 -2- therefore, the present appeals may be allowed in terms of the aforementioned judgment. In view of agreement between counsel for the parties, the appeals are allowed, order dated 29.10.2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'SMC-I', New Delhi, and order dated 20.06.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Delhi, for the assessment year 1994-95, are set aside.

[ RAJIVE BHALLA ]

JUDGE 03.07.2013 [ DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON ] shamsher JUDGE

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →