ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD vs. C.I.T

ITA - 970 / 2010HC Delhi30 July 20101 pages

For Petitioner: VINAY VAISH

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Delhi first addressed the application for delay in re-filing the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the averments made in the application, the Court condoned the delay in re-filing. The application was disposed of. Subsequently, the Court considered the main appeal, ITA No. 970/2010. Both parties submitted that the controversy in the appeal was covered by the decision in Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2010] 320 ITR 420 (Delhi). In view of this common submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs. The ratio decidendi is that if a controversy is covered by a binding precedent, the appeal will be dismissed on that basis. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was decided on the basis of the precedent.

What were the facts?

The appeal, ITA No. 970/2010, was filed by Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. (the assessee) against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) (the revenue). The appeal was filed before the High Court of Delhi. An application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal was also filed. The High Court heard arguments from both the assessee's counsel, Ms. Kavita Jha, and the revenue's counsel, Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal. The parties submitted that the controversy in the present appeal was covered by a previous decision of the same High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in re-filing the appeal should be condoned? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether the present appeal is covered by the decision in Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2010] 320 ITR 420 (Delhi)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee's counsel argued that the controversy in the present appeal is covered by the decision rendered in Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2010] 320 ITR 420 (Delhi). No specific arguments were recorded for the delay condonation application, other than it being heard. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue's counsel agreed that the controversy is covered by the aforementioned decision. No specific arguments were recorded for the delay condonation application, other than it being heard.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 7. ITA 970/2010 . . . ANSAL HOUSING and CONSTRUCTION LTD ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. . versus . C.I.T ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 30.07.2010 CM 12870/2010 . Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. . CM 12871/2010 . This is an application for delay in re-filing the appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Regard being had to the averments made in the application, delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. . ITA No. 970/2010 Heard Ms. Kavita Jha, learned counsel for the assessee-appellant and Mr.Sabharwal, learned counsel for the respondent-revenue. It is submitted at ITA 970/2010 Page 1 of 2 the bar that the controversy is covered by the decision rendered in Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2010] 320 ITR 420 (Delhi). In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. . . . CHIEF JUSTICE . . . MANMOHAN, J JULY 30, 2010 pk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA 970/2010 Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →