PCIT ROHTAK vs. M/S PALIWAL OVERSEAS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/73/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01066851202403 October 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the ITAT had examined the grounds and confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). The ITAT's factual findings were based on the assessment that there were more than five units and a single tenant could hire two distinct units from the same owner. The claim had been allowed for AY 2006-07 to 2009-10 and not disputed. For AY 2010-11 and 2012-13, the ITAT confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s order. Given the concurrent factual findings of the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT, the High Court found no substantial question of law requiring examination. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Rohtak, challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench "F". The ITAT's order, in ITA No. 208/DEL/2018, dismissed the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The PCIT contends that the ITAT erred by failing to consider the grounds raised by the Revenue and that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had wrongly given a finding that Form 10CCB was submitted during original assessment proceedings, a fact not supported by assessment records. The ITAT is accused of considering the grounds together and overlooking the deletion of an addition related to deduction under Section 80IA(4). The same issue was also present in AY 2012-13.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is a substantial question of law requiring examination by this Court, concerning the ITAT's order which dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2014-15, and whether the ITAT failed to consider the grounds raised by the Revenue. Assessee's Contention: The ITAT's order is perverse and failed to consider the grounds raised by the Revenue. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wrongly held that Form 10CCB was submitted during original assessment proceedings, a fact not borne out by the assessment records. The ITAT considered the grounds together and overlooked the deletion of an addition on account of deduction under Section 80IA(4). Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80IA(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-73-2024 (O 136/108

IN TH

Principal Com M/s Paliwal O CORAM: H

H Present: M

f SANJEEV P

1.

This is 1961 as No.208 2014-1 2. Learned the ord taken th factual his orig assessm 3. We fin examin denial followe O&M)

Page 1 of 2 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) an appeal preferred under sec ssailing the order passed by the 83/DEL/2018 whereby the Re 5 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 ginal assessment proceedings, an ment records. nd that the ITAT considered t ned the effect relating to delet of deduction under Section 80 ed its order for the AY 2012-13 AB AND HARYANA AT RH ITA-73-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.10.2024 le, Rohtak . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH Standing Counsel ) 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 nd the fact is not borne out of the the grounds together and also tion of addition on account of 0IA(4) of the Act. The ITAT where also the same issue was

) 4 t t , A Y n s a g e o f T s MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.14 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-73-2024 (O examin CIT(Ap were m from th from A for AY confirm 4. Factual CIT(Ap any sub 5. Appeal 6. All pen

October 03, 202 Mohit goyal 1. Whether 2. Whether O&M)

Page 2 of 2 ned by it, and the ITAT had ppeals). The aspect was examine more than five units and a single t he same owner of the property AY 2006-07 to 2009-10 which h Y 2010-11 and 2012-13, the ITA med the order of the CIT(Appeals 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 24 speaking/reasoned?

Y reportable?

Y d confirmed the order of the ed on factual grounds that there tenant can hire two distinct units y. The claim had been allowed ad not been disputed. Therefore AT has taken the same view and s). 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 e s d e d f d MOHIT GOYAL 2024.10.14 12:57 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 →