COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. ESCORTS EMPLOYEES ANCILLARIES

PDF · subscribers
ITA/490/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093429201009 November 2011Bench: MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, considering the submissions, noted that the questions of law raised in the present appeal were identical to those decided in the case of Dullichand Singhania v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2004) 269 ITR 192 (Punjab & Haryana). In that precedent, vide order dated 20.12.2003, such questions of law were answered against the Revenue. Therefore, following its own previous decision, the High Court dismissed the present appeal filed by the Revenue. The judgment does not provide specific reasoning on the merits of the ITAT's decision regarding the invalidity of reassessment proceedings or the non-adjudication of deleted additions, as it disposed of the appeal based on the precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad, has appealed against an order dated 25.09.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2000-01 and concerns M/s Escorts Employees Ancillaries Ltd. (now ECO Auto Components Ltd.). The ITAT had upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which had found the initiation of reassessment proceedings to be invalid. The Revenue contended that income had escaped assessment and the original assessment order resulted in under-assessment. The dispute involves the validity of reassessment proceedings and the ITAT's decision to not adjudicate certain additions deleted by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in holding the initiation of reassessment proceedings invalid even though the income had escaped the assessment and the original assessment order resulted into under assessment, and if this is contrary to the decisions in New Light Trading Co. vs CIT (2005) 256 ITR 391 (Del.) and CIT vs PVS Beedies (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2000) 236 ITR 832 (Guj.)? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in not adjudicating the additions deleted by the Ld. CIT (A) in holding that they are academic and the same in dismissed and not confirming the order of the Assessing Officer? Assessee's contentions: The respondent-assessee argued that similar questions of law were raised in the case of Dullichand Singhania v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2004) 269 ITR 192 (Punjab & Haryana), and these questions were answered against the Revenue by an order dated 20.12.2003. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that income had escaped assessment and the original assessment order resulted in under-assessment, arguing that the ITAT's upholding of the CIT(A)'s decision on reassessment proceedings was incorrect and contrary to cited High Court decisions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.490 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.490 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 09.11.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ….Appellant Vs. M/s Escorts Employees Ancillaries Ltd., (now known as ECO Auto Components Ltd.) 20/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad

….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Tejinder K.Joshi, Advocate, for the appellant, Mr.Sanjay Bansal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Robin Daryal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** HEMANT GUPTA J. (ORAL) The Revenue has claimed the following substantial questions of law arising out the order dated 25.09.2009d passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘B’ New Delhi in ITA No.1771/Del/2008 for the Asstt. Year 2000-01. “ I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in holding the initiation of reassessment proceedings invalid even though the income had escaped the assessment and the original assessment order resulted into under assessment and is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of New Light Trading Co. vs CIT 256 ITR 391 (Del.) and Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of

ITA No.490 of 2010 2 CIT vs PVS Beedies (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT 236 ITR 832 (Guj.)? II. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in not adjudicating the addition deleted by the Ld. CIT (A) in holding that they are academic and the same in dismissed and not confirming the order of the Assessing Officer ?” Learned counsel for the respondent states that said questions of law were also questions of law raised in the case of Dullichand Singhania v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2004) 269 ITR 192 (Punjab & Haryana) and vide order dated 20.12.2003, such questions of law have been answered against the Revenue. Keeping in view the said fact, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) 09.11.2011 JUDGE sailesh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →