PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Department (ITA-410-2015) has become infructuous. This conclusion was reached because the assessee, GMADA, had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020. As a consequence of the assessee availing the benefits of this Act, their appeal in quantum proceedings (ITA-24-2015) was dismissed as withdrawn by the Division Bench on 01.07.2021. The Court noted that the matter between the parties had been resolved under the 2020 Act. Therefore, the present appeal by the Department concerning penalty proceedings was rendered infructuous, with nothing substantive surviving for adjudication. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal accordingly.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), had appealed to the High Court against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in quantum proceedings (ITA-24-2015). During the pendency of this appeal, the Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020, was enacted. Consequently, GMADA's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Division Bench on 01.07.2021. Separately, the Department had also filed an appeal (ITA-410-2015) before the High Court against an order dated 21.05.2015 passed by the ITAT concerning penalty proceedings. The present appeal (ITA-410-2015) is before the High Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Department (ITA-410-2015) against the ITAT's order on penalty proceedings has become infructuous in light of the assessee having opted for the Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020, and the consequent withdrawal of the assessee's appeal in quantum proceedings. Assessee's contention: The assessee, through its counsel, submitted that since the matter between the parties stood resolved under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020, the present appeal filed by the Department has become infructuous and nothing substantive survives therein. Therefore, the appeal should be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue regarding the appeal becoming infructuous. However, the revenue's counsel was present and agreed with the assessee's submission that the appeal be disposed of as infructuous.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITA-410-2015(O&M) 1 2023:PHHC:134331-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-410-2015(O&M) Date of decision: 16.10.2023 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh … Appellant Versus M/s Greater Mohali Area Development Authority … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel, for the appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sidhant Suri and Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocates, for the respondent-GMADA. *** ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in quantum proceedings, the respondent-GMADA had appealed to this Court (ITA-24-2015). However, since during the pendency of the said appeal, the Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020 had come into being, the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the Division Bench, vide order dated 01.07.2021: “CM-5027-CII-2021
This is an application for withdrawal of the appeal in view of the fact that the appellant has adopted Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Notice of the application. On advance notice, Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent. For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. RAJAN KUMAR 2023.10.16 22:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
ITA-410-2015(O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:134331-DB Main case is taken up for hearing today itself. ITA-24-2015 In view of the averments made in CM-5027-CII- 2021, the main appeal bearing ITA-24-2015 stands dismissed as withdrawn. Since the main appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn, the pending Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, also stands dismissed as withdrawn.” It is urged that against the order, dated 21.05.2015, passed by the Tribunal, qua the penalty proceedings, even the Department had approached this Court vide ITA-410-2015. But, since the matter between the parties stood resolved under 2020 Act (ibid), the appeal at hand is rendered infructuous. And, nothing substantive survives therein. Accordingly, learned counsel for the parties submit that the present appeal be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. Ordered, accordingly. ( Arun Palli )
Judge 16.10.2023 Rajan ( Vikram Aggarwal ) Judge Whether speaking / reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO RAJAN KUMAR 2023.10.16 22:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
