COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S T T S HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/71/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080728200829 March 2016Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no finding was rendered on the substantial question of law concerning the perversity of the ITAT's order or the validity of the re-opening of the assessment. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal with liberty granted.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II (appellant-revenue) against the order dated 21.05.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench (A), for the assessment year 1999-2000. The ITAT's order was in appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The core of the dispute, as indicated by the substantial question of law, revolved around the Assessing Officer's belief that income had escaped assessment, necessitating the re-opening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue contended that the Assessing Officer had sufficient reasons and supporting material before issuing the notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the ITAT is perverse as the ITAT has failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer had re-opened the assessment with sufficient reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, which were recorded before issuing notice under Section 148 and had sufficient supporting material before him? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through its learned counsel, submitted that in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, it did not wish to press the present appeal as the tax effect involved was less than ₹ 20 lacs. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 71 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 71 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.03.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II .......Appellant Versus M/s T.T.S. Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd. ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order dated 21.5.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (A), in ITA No.220/Chandi/2005 for the assessment year 1999-2000, raising the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the ITAT is perverse as the ITAT has failed to appreciate the fact that the Assessing Officer had re-opened the assessment having sufficient reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment which were recorded before issuing notice u/s 148 and had sufficient supporting material before him? REEMA SAINI 2016.04.04 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

ITA No. 71 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, she does not wish to press the present appeal, as the tax effect involved is less than ` 20 lacs. However, she prays that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It is however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)

JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) 29.03.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.04.04 13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →