COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD vs. JOGINDER KAUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/541/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093486201004 April 2011Bench: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The Court noted that the matter was covered by its previous judgment dated February 1, 2011, in CIT v. Sh. Naveen Verma (ITA No.558 of 2006). The specific findings on the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were not detailed in this order, as the Court opted to follow its precedent and remand the case. The operative direction was to send the matter back to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the entire matter was remitted.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated January 19, 2010. The appeals relate to a block assessment for the period from June 30, 1989, to November 30, 1997. The ITAT had quashed the assessment order passed under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue's appeals challenge the ITAT's findings regarding the validity of the notice issued under Section 158BD and the subsequent assessment order. The High Court noted that all four appeals involved the same questions and that the matter was covered by a previous judgment of the Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was right in holding that the notice issued under Section 158BD by the Assessing Officer without giving 15 clear days to the assessee to file a block return is void and invalid, and consequently, the assessment order is also illegal and invalid, despite the assessee filing a return after a considerable gap and issue of various notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 158BD). 2. Whether the ITAT was right in declaring the proceedings illegal and invalid despite the saver under Section 292B of the Act, without considering it, when the service of notice was in substance and effect in conformity with the intent of the Act? (Question of law, concerning Section 292B). 3. Whether the ITAT was right in quashing the assessment order under Section 158BD and not deciding the issues on merit, holding that the grounds raised by the Revenue had become redundant? (Question of law, concerning Section 158BD). The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred by quashing the assessment order due to procedural irregularities in the notice, especially when Section 292B provides a saver for such defects and the assessee had ultimately filed a return. The Revenue contended that the ITAT should have decided the issues on merit. The Assessee's arguments are not recorded in the provided text, other than the implicit acceptance of the ITAT's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 158BD,Section 292B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.541 of 2010 Date of decision: 4.4.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax -----Appellant. Vs. Smt. Joginder Kaur. -----Respondent and connected appeals being ITA Nos.667, 669 and 670 of 2010 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

This order will dispose of I.T.A. Nos.541, 667, 669 and 670 of 2010 as all the four appeals involve same questions. I.T.A. No.541 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 19.1.2010 in ITA No.207/Del/2005 for the block assessment from 30.6.1989 to 31.11.1997 claiming following substantial questions of law:-

I.T.A. No.541 of 2010 “I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in holding that the notice issued u/s 158BD by the Assessing Officer without giving 15 clear days time to the assessee to file the block return is ab initio void and invalid and accordingly, the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer u/s 158BD in pursuance to the said illegal notice is also illegal and invalid disregarding the fact that the assessee himself had filed the return on 10-03-2003 in response to notice u/s 158BD dated 09-03-2001 i.e. after a considerable gap of time and after issue of various notices by the Assessing Officer? II. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in declaring the proceedings pursuant to the notice as illegal and invalid despite the specific saver provided under the Act by way of section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without even considering and discussing the said section because in view of section 292B the Ld. ITAT should have set aside the case if certain procedural at the time of service of notice remained to be followed as the service of notice u/s 158BD was in substance and effect in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act?” III. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in quashing the assessment order made u/s158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not deciding the issues involved in the case on merit by holding that since the assessment has been quashed, the various grounds raised by the revenue in its appeal have become redundant at this stage and hence do not call for any adjudication?” 2

I.T.A. No.541 of 2010 Learned counsel for the parties state that the matter is covered by judgment of this Court dated 1.2.2011 in I.T.A. No.558 of 2006 in CIT v. Sh. Sh. Naveen Verma. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed in same terms and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Parties may appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on July 04, 2011.

The appeals are disposed of.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 04, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) 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 →