THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/42/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01131324202211 January 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that another appeal, ITA-514-2014, against the main order of the ITAT dated 28.04.2017, had already been admitted. Faced with the situation and the submissions made by the Revenue's counsel, Mr. Kapoor, who sought permission to withdraw the present appeal, the Court permitted the withdrawal. The liberty was granted to the Revenue to avail their remedy, if any, against the subsequent order passed on 28.06.2022 in the civil miscellaneous application bearing No.447/DEL/2017, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the revenue was seeking a review of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the maintainability of the appeal against the Section 254(2) order.

What were the facts?

The appeal, ITA No.42 of 2023, was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (the Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 28.06.2022, concerning assessment year 2011-12. The Revenue had filed the appeal against an order passed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to rectification of mistakes. The respondent, Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee), contended that an appeal against an order under Section 254(2) is not maintainable and should be challenged via a writ petition. The Revenue had also filed another appeal, ITA-514-2014, against the main ITAT order dated 28.04.2017, which was already admitted. The High Court had granted opportunities to the Revenue to seek instructions regarding the maintainability of the present appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is maintainable against an order passed by the ITAT under Section 254(2) of the Act, which deals with rectification of mistakes. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that an appeal against an order passed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act is not maintainable before the High Court. They contended that such an order, being a rectification of a previous order, should be challenged by way of a writ petition. The assessee also pointed out the delay in filing the present appeal against the order dated 28.06.2022, which was filed after a gap of 5 years. Revenue's contention: The Revenue sought to file the appeal against the ITAT's order dated 28.06.2022. They requested permission to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to avail their remedy, if any, against the said subsequent order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:003507-DB ITA No.42 of 2023(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107

ITA No.42 of 2023(O&M)

Date of decision: 11.01.2024 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax … Appellant Versus Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Chopra, Advocate, for the respondent. G.S.

SANDHAWALIA

, J. (Oral) 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order passed in ITA No.789/DEL/2016 dated 28.06.2022 and 28.04.2017 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. On 01.06.2023, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to prepare the case. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent says that this appeal cannot be filed against the order passed under Section 254 (2). He states that one appeal i.e. ITA-514-2014 against the Tribunal order is pending. The present appeal has been filed along with the order passed in the miscellaneous application which they can challenge only by way of filing writ petition and this too is filed after a gap of 5 years. Learned counsel for the appellant will examine this issue. Adjourned to 26.07.2023. Registry is directed to tag ITA-514-2014 along with this case.” Monika Verma 2024.01.15 23:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:003507-DB ITA No.42 of 2023(O&M) -2- 3. Thereafter, on 08.11.2023, we passed the following order:- “Matter has been heard through hybrid mode on the request of learned counsel for the respondent. Earlier order dated 01.06.2023 has not been complied with. Counsel for the appellant prays for another opportunity to seek necessary instructions in terms of the order dated 01.06.2023. Last opportunity is granted otherwise costs will be imposed on the appellants if instructions are not completed by the next date. Adjourned to 11.01.2024.” 4. We have also perused the paper book of ITA-514-2017, wherein the appeal against the main order of the Tribunal dated 28.04.2017 already stands admitted. Substantial question of law which arose for consideration is at paragraph 9 of the said appeal, on which question the appeal stands admitted. 5. Faced with this situation, Mr. Kapoor submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to avail his remedy, if any, against the subsequent order passed on 28.06.2022 in civil miscellaneous application bearing No.447/DEL/2017, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the revenue was seeking review of the order. 6. Disposed of accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia)

Judge 11.01.2024 (Lapita Banerji) monika

Judge Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Monika Verma 2024.01.15 23:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →