DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. DMJM HARRIES INC

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1021/2010HC DelhiDLHC01033127201029 September 2010Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act is not maintainable under Section 260A of the Act, as per the Full Bench judgment in Lachman Dass Bhatia Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The reasoning was that the nature of the appeal and the provisions invoked did not align with the maintainability criteria under Section 260A. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground. The Tribunal also noted that the issue regarding interest leviable under Section 234B had already been decided in favour of the assessee in a previous batch matter. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal, while granting the appellant liberty to pursue remedies available under the law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on maintainability.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the appellant (assessee) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly mentioned. The core dispute revolved around interest leviable under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and certain directions contained in Para 6 of an order. The respondent (revenue) was not represented. The ITAT had previously decided the issue of interest under Section 234B in favour of the assessee in a batch of matters, including Director, Income Tax Vs. M/s. Mitsubishi. The appellant's counsel raised an objection to directions in Para 6. However, the ITAT noted that an appeal under Section 254 of the Act is not maintainable under Section 260A of the Act, citing a Full Bench judgment in Lachman Dass Bhatia Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act is maintainable under Section 260A of the Act, concerning directions in Para 6 of the impugned order. Assessee's Contention: The assessee's counsel raised an objection to the directions contained in Para 6 of the order. The assessee relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of the ITAT in Lachman Dass Bhatia Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA No.724 of 2010 decided on 06.08.2010) to argue that the appeal under Section 254 is not maintainable under Section 260A. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no argument for the respondent (revenue).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234B,Section 254,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

% 29.09.2010 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for the Appellant. None for the respondent. +ITA No.1021/2010 * The issue regarding interest leviable under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, which arises on the facts of this; t already stands K decided by the judgment of this Court dated 30.08.2010 in a batch matter, the lead case being Director, Income Tax Vs. MIs. Mitsubishi in ITA No. 491 of 2008, in favour of the assessee. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, has objection to the directions contained in Para 6. However, since these directions are given in an appeal filed under Section 254 of the Act, such an appeal is not maintainable under Section 260A of the Act as per the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in a batch matter, leading case being Lachman Dass Bhatia Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA No.724 of 2010 decided on 06.08.2010),. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant shall be at liberty to take such remedy as available under the Law. K.K. SIKRI,J. RVAKHETRAPAL,J. SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 pmc Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 234B

All 10,214 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →