COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,LUDHIANA vs. M/S SANGRUR VANASPATI MILLS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/40/2003HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01052462200323 September 2010Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal has become infructuous. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the issue has now been decided in favour of the Revenue by this Court, establishing that deduction under Section 80HH of the Act is to be allowed after deduction under Section 32A of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal is bound to follow this precedent. The Court agreed with this submission and found no necessity to adjudicate the substantial question of law as originally framed or as agreed upon by the parties. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as infructuous, without deciding the merits of the Section 158A application or the underlying deduction issue.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated September 6, 2002, for Assessment Year 1984-85. The dispute concerned the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HH. The Assessing Officer held that the Section 80HH deduction should be calculated after reducing the deduction permissible under Section 32A. The CIT(A) reversed this, but the ITAT restored the Assessing Officer's view. The assessee then filed an application under Section 158A of the Act to keep the issue pending until this Court decided a similar question of law for a previous year. The ITAT kept the issue pending on this basis.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in admitting the assessee’s application filed under Section 158A of the Income Tax Act? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee regarding the admission of the Section 158A application. However, the fact that they filed it implies a belief in its applicability. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that since the issue has now been decided in its favour by this Court, and it was held that deduction under Section 80HH is to be allowed after deduction under Section 32A, the Tribunal is bound to follow this decision. Therefore, the appeal has become infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 80HH,Section 32A,Section 158A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.40 of 2003 Date of decision: 23.9.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills. Ltd. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the respondent. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 6.9.2002 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in I.T.A. No.529/Chandi/93 for the assessment year 1984-85 proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in admitting the assessee’s application filed u/s 158A of the I.T. Act?” 2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the question of law should have been whether Section 158A of the

I.T.A. No.40 of 2003 Act was applicable when same issue was pending before this Court for a different year. 3. Brief facts for decision of this appeal may be noticed. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80 HH of the Act by computing deduction without reducing permissible deduction under Section 32A of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that deduction under Section 80HH of the Act could be allowed only after excluding deduction permissible under Section 32A of the Act. However, the CIT(A) reversed the said view. The Tribunal, however, restored the view of the Assessing Officer. The assessee made an application under Section 158A of the Act to keep the issue pending till decision by this Court on a question of law referred to this Court for the previous year. On that account, the issue was kept pending. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the issue has now been decided in favour of the revenue by this Court and it has been held that deduction under Section 80 HH of the Act is to be allowed after deduction under Section 32A of the Act, the Tribunal is bound to follow the said decision. The appeal has, thus, become infructuous. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 23, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) 2

I.T.A. No.40 of 2003 ashwani JUDGE 3

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 →