PCIT ROHTAK vs. M/S PALIWAL OVERSEAS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/72/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01066693202402 August 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there was no substantial question of law requiring examination. The Court noted that the ITAT considered the original assessment records and examined the effect relating to the denial of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, amounting to Rs. 6,22,80,152/-. The ITAT followed its own order for AY 2012-13, where the same issue was examined and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was confirmed. The ITAT also considered the aspect that there were more than five distinct units and a single tenant from the same owner of the property, and that deduction had been allowed from AY 2006-07 to 2009-10. Given the concurrent factual findings of the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT, the High Court found no substantial question of law to be examined. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is preferred by the Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Rohtak) against the order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench “F”. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. The Revenue contends that the ITAT order is perverse and failed to consider the grounds taken by the Revenue. Specifically, the Revenue argues that the CIT(Appeals) wrongly gave a finding that Form 10CCB was submitted by the assessee during original assessment proceedings. The ITAT, however, considered the original assessment records and examined the effect relating to the denial of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, amounting to Rs. 6,22,80,152/-. The ITAT followed its earlier order for AY 2012-13, where the same issue was examined and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was confirmed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is a substantial question of law requiring examination by the High Court, given the concurrent factual findings of the lower authorities (CIT(Appeals) and ITAT)? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the scope of appeal under Section 260A). 2. Whether the ITAT erred in confirming the deletion of addition of Rs. 6,22,80,152/- on account of denial of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, by following its own earlier order? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the judgment implies the assessee relied on the order of the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT's earlier decision for AY 2012-13. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that there is perversity in the ITAT's order and that the ITAT failed to consider the grounds taken by the Revenue. The Revenue also contended that the CIT(Appeals) wrongly gave a finding that Form 10CCB was submitted by the assessee during original assessment proceedings. The Revenue further argued that the ITAT's decision to confirm the deletion of deduction was based on a flawed premise, as there were more than five distinct units and a single tenant from the same owner of the property, which had been allowed from AY 2006-07 to 2009-10, but this aspect was not properly considered for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80IA(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-72-2024 (O 105

IN TH

Principal Com M/s Paliwal O CORAM: H

H Present: M

f SANJEEV P

CM-9122-CII-

A appeal is allow CM-9123-CII-

E Main case 1. This is 1961 as No.208 2010-1 2. Learned the ord taken th factual O&M) Page 1 of 2 (THROUGH V HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR mmissioner of Income Tax, Circl Vs.

Overseas Pvt. Ltd. **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN **** Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal Opal, Sr. for the appellant. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) -2024 Application for condonation of wed and accordingly delay is con -2024 Exemption application is allowed

an appeal preferred under sec ssailing the order passed by the 82/DEL/2018 whereby the Re 1 was dismissed. d counsel for the appellant subm er passed by the ITAT, and it ha herein. It is stated that the CIT finding that Form 10CCB was s VC) AB AND HARYANA AT RH ITA-72-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.08.2024 le, Rohtak . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH Standing Counsel ) f delay of 50 days in filing of ndoned. d as prayed for. tion 260A of Income Tax Act, ITAT, Delhi Bench “F” in ITA evenue’s appeal for the AY mits that there is a perversity in as failed to consider the grounds T(Appeals) had wrongly given a submitted by the assessee during

) 4 t t f , A Y n s a g MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.05 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-72-2024 (O his orig assessm 3. We find also e Rs.6,22 80IA(4 where confirm factual can hir claim h been di taken th 4. Factual CIT(Ap any sub 5. Appeal 6. All pen

August 02, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether 2. Whether O&M) Page 2 of 2 ginal assessment proceedings, an ment records. d that the ITAT considered the examined the effect relating 2,80,152/- on account of denia ) of the Act. The ITAT followe also the same issue was exam med the order of the CIT(Appeal grounds that there were more th re two distinct units from the sa had been allowed from AY 200 isputed. Therefore for AY 2010 he same view and confirmed the l findings arrived at by the ITAT ppeals) and ITAT having been n bstantial question of law required l is dismissed having no merits. nding applications also stand disp

(SANJ 4 speaking/reasoned?

Y reportable?

Y nd the fact is not borne out of the grounds No.1 to 6 together and to deletion of addition of al of deduction under Section ed its order for the AY 2012-13 mined by it, and the ITAT had ls). The aspect was examined on han five units and a single tenant ame owner of the property. The 06-07 to 2009-10 which had not 0-11 and 2012-13, the ITAT has order of the CIT(Appeals). T and the concurrent findings of noticed as above, we do not find d to be examined by this Court. posed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

e d f n 3 d n t e t s f d MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.05 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 80IA(4)

All 475 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →