KOHINOOR FOOD LIMITED (FORMERLY SATNAM OVERSEAS LIMITED) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA - 615 / 2008HC Delhi01 July 20081 pages

For Petitioner: PRAKASH KUMAR

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Delhi granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The Court acknowledged that the pending rectification applications before the ITAT were material to the present appeals and that a favourable decision for the assessee in those proceedings would render the current appeals infructuous. Conversely, if the assessee's stand was not accepted by the ITAT, they would have another opportunity to appeal to the High Court. Therefore, the Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeals with liberty to the assessee to approach the High Court depending on the decision taken by the ITAT in respect of the appellant's applications under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No decision was made on the merits of the appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals before the High Court of Delhi concerning assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. These appeals arose from a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on May 18, 2007. The assessee had also filed separate rectification applications under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the ITAT, which were pending. The questions raised in these rectification proceedings were considered material to the present appeals. The assessee sought permission to withdraw the current appeals, with liberty to approach the High Court again depending on the ITAT's decision on the rectification applications.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeals would become infructuous if the assessee's rectification applications under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are decided in their favour by the ITAT? 2. Whether the assessee should be granted permission to withdraw the present appeals with liberty to approach the High Court depending on the outcome of the rectification proceedings? Assessee's Arguments: The assessee argued that the questions raised in the pending rectification applications before the ITAT were material to the present appeals. They sought permission to withdraw the current appeals with liberty to re-approach the High Court based on the decision of the ITAT on the rectification applications. The assessee relied on the principle that if a subsequent event or pending proceeding could render the current appeal infructuous, withdrawal with liberty might be appropriate. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 01.07.2008 . Present: Mr C.S. Aggarwal, Sr Advocate with Mr Prakash Kumar for the Appellant. Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal for the Respondent. . + ITA 615/2008 . These two appeals are taken up together as they arise out of the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 18.05.2007 in two appeals concerning the same assessee for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out in the memo of appeal, as well as, in the course of arguments that the appellant has already filed separate rectification applications under Section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same are pending. The questions raised in those rectification proceedings are material for the purpose of the present appeals also and it is apparent that if a decision is taken in favour of the assessee in the rectification proceedings, then the present appeals would become infructuous. On Page 1 of 2 the other hand, if the assessee?s stand is not accepted by the Tribunal, then the assessee would have another opportunity to approach this Court by way of an appeal. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant / assessee seeks permission of this Court to withdraw these appeals with liberty to approach this Court depending upon the decision taken by the Tribunal in respect of the appellant?s applications under Section 254 (2) of the said Act. Permission is granted. The appeals are dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. . . BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J . . . RAJIV SHAKDHER, J . July 01, 2008 mk . . . Page 2 of 2 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →